OBJECTIVE: To study in myocardial infarction (MI) whether documentation of ischaemic symptoms is associated with quality of care and outcomes, and to compare patient reports of ischaemic symptoms during interviews with chart documentation. DESIGN: Observational acute MI study from 2003 to 2004 (Prospective Registry Evaluating Myocardial Infarction: Event and Recovery). SETTING: 19 diverse US hospitals. PATIENTS: 2094 consecutive patients with MI (10 911 patients screened; 3953 patients were eligible and enrolled) with both positive cardiac enzymes and other evidence of infarction (eg, symptoms, electrocardiographic changes). Transferred patients and those with confounding non-cardiac comorbidity were not included (n = 1859). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of care indicators and adjusted in-hospital survival. RESULTS: The records of 10% of all patients with MI (217/2094) contained no documented ischaemic symptoms at presentation. Patients without documented symptoms were less likely (p<0.05) to receive aspirin (89% vs 96%) or beta-blockers (77% vs 90%) within 24 hours, reperfusion therapy for ST-elevation MI (7% vs 58%) or to survive their hospitalisation (adjusted odds ratio = 3.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.8). Survivors without documented symptoms were also less likely (p<0.05) to be discharged with aspirin (87% vs 93%), beta-blockers (81% vs 91%), ACE/ARB (67% vs 80%), or smoking cessation counselling (46% vs 66%). In the subset of 1356 (65%) interviewed patients, most of those without documented ischaemic symptoms (75%) reported presenting symptoms consistent with ischaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to document patients' presenting MI symptoms is associated with poorer quality of care from admission to discharge, and higher in-hospital mortality. Symptom recognition may represent an important opportunity to improve the quality of MI care.
OBJECTIVE: To study in myocardial infarction (MI) whether documentation of ischaemic symptoms is associated with quality of care and outcomes, and to compare patient reports of ischaemic symptoms during interviews with chart documentation. DESIGN: Observational acute MI study from 2003 to 2004 (Prospective Registry Evaluating Myocardial Infarction: Event and Recovery). SETTING: 19 diverse US hospitals. PATIENTS: 2094 consecutive patients with MI (10 911 patients screened; 3953 patients were eligible and enrolled) with both positive cardiac enzymes and other evidence of infarction (eg, symptoms, electrocardiographic changes). Transferred patients and those with confounding non-cardiac comorbidity were not included (n = 1859). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Quality of care indicators and adjusted in-hospital survival. RESULTS: The records of 10% of all patients with MI (217/2094) contained no documented ischaemic symptoms at presentation. Patients without documented symptoms were less likely (p<0.05) to receive aspirin (89% vs 96%) or beta-blockers (77% vs 90%) within 24 hours, reperfusion therapy for ST-elevation MI (7% vs 58%) or to survive their hospitalisation (adjusted odds ratio = 3.2, 95% CI 1.8 to 5.8). Survivors without documented symptoms were also less likely (p<0.05) to be discharged with aspirin (87% vs 93%), beta-blockers (81% vs 91%), ACE/ARB (67% vs 80%), or smoking cessation counselling (46% vs 66%). In the subset of 1356 (65%) interviewed patients, most of those without documented ischaemic symptoms (75%) reported presenting symptoms consistent with ischaemia. CONCLUSIONS: Failure to document patients' presenting MI symptoms is associated with poorer quality of care from admission to discharge, and higher in-hospital mortality. Symptom recognition may represent an important opportunity to improve the quality of MI care.
Authors: Elizabeth H Bradley; Jeph Herrin; Jennifer A Mattera; Eric S Holmboe; Yongfei Wang; Paul Frederick; Sarah A Roumanis; Martha J Radford; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-03 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Rajendra H Mehta; Cecelia K Montoye; Meg Gallogly; Patricia Baker; Angela Blount; Jessica Faul; Canopy Roychoudhury; Steven Borzak; Susan Fox; Mary Franklin; Marge Freundl; Eva Kline-Rogers; Thomas LaLonde; Michele Orza; Robert Parrish; Martha Satwicz; Mary Jo Smith; Paul Sobotka; Stuart Winston; Arthur A Riba; Kim A Eagle Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-03-13 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: John A Spertus; Eric Peterson; John S Rumsfeld; Philip G Jones; Carole Decker; Harlan Krumholz Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2006-03 Impact factor: 4.749
Authors: J G Canto; M G Shlipak; W J Rogers; J A Malmgren; P D Frederick; C T Lambrew; J P Ornato; H V Barron; C I Kiefe Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-06-28 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: M F Dorsch; R A Lawrance; R J Sapsford; N Durham; J Oldham; D C Greenwood; B M Jackson; C Morrell; M B Robinson; A S Hall Journal: Heart Date: 2001-11 Impact factor: 5.994
Authors: Ronnier J Aviles; Arman T Askari; Bertil Lindahl; Lars Wallentin; Gang Jia; E Magnus Ohman; Kenneth W Mahaffey; L Kristin Newby; Robert M Califf; Maarten L Simoons; Eric J Topol; Peter Berger; Michael S Lauer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2002-06-27 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sidha Sreedharan; Ning Li; Geoff Littlejohn; Russell Buchanan; Mandana Nikpour; Eric Morand; Alberta Hoi; Vera Golder Journal: Arthritis Res Ther Date: 2022-06-22 Impact factor: 5.606
Authors: Erik B Schelbert; Jie J Cao; Sigurdur Sigurdsson; Thor Aspelund; Peter Kellman; Anthony H Aletras; Christopher K Dyke; Gudmundur Thorgeirsson; Gudny Eiriksdottir; Lenore J Launer; Vilmundur Gudnason; Tamara B Harris; Andrew E Arai Journal: JAMA Date: 2012-09-05 Impact factor: 56.272