Literature DB >> 21327505

Quality measures and benchmarking for warfarin therapy.

Daniel M Witt1.   

Abstract

The ultimate goal of warfarin therapy, to prevent thromboembolism with the lowest possible risk of major bleeding complications, is most likely to be realized when therapeutic anticoagulation as measured by the international normalized ratio (INR) is quickly achieved and maintained in appropriate candidates. Realizing this goal requires optimal functioning of various anticoagulation management system components. The extent to which these components function smoothly together determines the quality of warfarin therapy management. A quality measure is used to ascertain the degree to which a given system is successfully coordinating care to accomplish a particular therapeutic goal. The quality of care can be evaluated at different levels such as outcomes (e.g. INR results, major bleeding, thromboembolism, death), processes (e.g. method used to adjust warfarin doses), and structures (e.g. clinic organization structure, workload statistics). There is great need for a structured program of quality measurement for warfarin therapy management. The arrival of new options for oral anticoagulation medications increases the need for credible information regarding the site-specific quality of warfarin therapy management because the potential advantages over warfarin therapy associated with some of these agents are in part dependent upon the quality of warfarin therapy management.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21327505     DOI: 10.1007/s11239-011-0570-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis        ISSN: 0929-5305            Impact factor:   2.300


  34 in total

Review 1.  Measuring quality of oral anticoagulation care: extending quality measurement to a new field.

Authors:  Adam J Rose; Dan R Berlowitz; Susan M Frayne; Elaine M Hylek
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2009-03

2.  Standardised initial warfarin treatment: evaluation of initial treatment response and maintenance dose prediction by randomised trial, and risk factors for an excessive warfarin response.

Authors:  C J Doecke; D G Cosh; A S Gallus
Journal:  Aust N Z J Med       Date:  1991-06

3.  A randomized comparison of a computer-based dosing program with a manual system to monitor oral anticoagulant therapy.

Authors:  W Ageno; A G Turpie
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  1998-09-01       Impact factor: 3.944

4.  Guidelines on oral anticoagulation: third edition.

Authors: 
Journal:  Br J Haematol       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 6.998

5.  Randomized assessment of a warfarin nomogram for initial oral anticoagulation after venous thromboembolic disease.

Authors:  M J Kovacs; M Cruickshank; P S Wells; H Kim; I Chin-Yee; B Morrow; E Boyle; J Kovacs
Journal:  Haemostasis       Date:  1998 Mar-Apr

6.  Benefit of oral anticoagulant over antiplatelet therapy in atrial fibrillation depends on the quality of international normalized ratio control achieved by centers and countries as measured by time in therapeutic range.

Authors:  Stuart J Connolly; Janice Pogue; John Eikelboom; Gregory Flaker; Patrick Commerford; Maria Grazia Franzosi; Jeffrey S Healey; Salim Yusuf
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2008-10-27       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  A method to determine the optimal intensity of oral anticoagulant therapy.

Authors:  F R Rosendaal; S C Cannegieter; F J van der Meer; E Briët
Journal:  Thromb Haemost       Date:  1993-03-01       Impact factor: 5.249

8.  An international multicenter randomized study of computer-assisted oral anticoagulant dosage vs. medical staff dosage.

Authors:  L Poller; M Keown; S Ibrahim; G Lowe; M Moia; A G Turpie; C Roberts; A M H P van den Besselaar; F J M van der Meer; A Tripodi; G Palareti; C Shiach; S Bryan; M Samama; M Burgess-Wilson; A Heagerty; P Maccallum; D Wright; J Jespersen
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 5.824

9.  Warfarin treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation: observing outcomes associated with varying levels of INR control.

Authors:  Christopher Ll Morgan; Phil McEwan; Andrzej Tukiendorf; Paul A Robinson; Andreas Clemens; Jonathan M Plumb
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2008-12-04       Impact factor: 3.944

10.  Pitfalls of converting practice guidelines into quality measures: lessons learned from a VA performance measure.

Authors:  Louise C Walter; Natalie P Davidowitz; Paul A Heineken; Kenneth E Covinsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2004-05-26       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  1 in total

Review 1.  Engaging with quality improvement in anticoagulation management.

Authors:  Geoffrey D Barnes; Eva Kline-Rogers
Journal:  J Thromb Thrombolysis       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.300

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.