OBJECTIVE: To improve quality of in-hospital care of patients with acute coronary syndromes using a multifaceted quality improvement program. DESIGN: Prospective, before and after study of the effects of quality improvement interventions between October 2000 and August 2002. Quality of care of patients admitted between 1 October 2000 and 16 April 2001 (baseline) was compared with that of those admitted between 15 February 2002 and 31 August 2002 (post-intervention). SETTING: Three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients (n = 1594) admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome [mean age 68 years (SD 14 years); 65% males]. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical guidelines, reminder tools, and educational interventions; 6-monthly performance feedback; pharmacist-mediated patient education program; and facilitation of multidisciplinary review of work practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in key quality indicators relating to timing of electrocardiogram (ECG) and thrombolysis in emergency departments, serum lipid measurement, prescription of adjunctive drugs, and secondary prevention. RESULTS: Comparing post-intervention with baseline patients, increases occurred in the proportions of eligible patients: (i) undergoing timely ECG (70% versus 61%; P = 0.04); (ii) prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (70% versus 60%; P = 0.002) and lipid-lowering agents (77% versus 68%; P = 0.005); (iii) receiving cardiac counselling in hospital (57% versus 48%; P = 0.009); and (iv) referred to cardiac rehabilitation (17% versus 8%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted approaches can improve care processes for patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Care processes under direct clinician control changed more quickly than those reliant on complex system factors. Identifying and overcoming organizational impediments to quality improvement deserves greater attention.
OBJECTIVE: To improve quality of in-hospital care of patients with acute coronary syndromes using a multifaceted quality improvement program. DESIGN: Prospective, before and after study of the effects of quality improvement interventions between October 2000 and August 2002. Quality of care of patients admitted between 1 October 2000 and 16 April 2001 (baseline) was compared with that of those admitted between 15 February 2002 and 31 August 2002 (post-intervention). SETTING: Three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: Consecutive patients (n = 1594) admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome [mean age 68 years (SD 14 years); 65% males]. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical guidelines, reminder tools, and educational interventions; 6-monthly performance feedback; pharmacist-mediated patient education program; and facilitation of multidisciplinary review of work practices. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in key quality indicators relating to timing of electrocardiogram (ECG) and thrombolysis in emergency departments, serum lipid measurement, prescription of adjunctive drugs, and secondary prevention. RESULTS: Comparing post-intervention with baseline patients, increases occurred in the proportions of eligible patients: (i) undergoing timely ECG (70% versus 61%; P = 0.04); (ii) prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (70% versus 60%; P = 0.002) and lipid-lowering agents (77% versus 68%; P = 0.005); (iii) receiving cardiac counselling in hospital (57% versus 48%; P = 0.009); and (iv) referred to cardiac rehabilitation (17% versus 8%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Multifaceted approaches can improve care processes for patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Care processes under direct clinician control changed more quickly than those reliant on complex system factors. Identifying and overcoming organizational impediments to quality improvement deserves greater attention.
Authors: Ehete Bahiru; Anubha Agarwal; Mark A Berendsen; Abigail S Baldridge; Tecla Temu; Amy Rogers; Carey Farquhar; Frederick Bukachi; Mark D Huffman Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2019-09-06