Robert L McNamara1, Yongfei Wang, Chohreh Partovian, Julia Montague, Purav Mody, Elizabeth Eddy, Harlan M Krumholz, Susannah M Bernheim. 1. *Yale New Haven Health Services Corporation-Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation †Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT ‡American Heart Association, Quality and Health IT §Department of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX ∥Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine ¶Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health #Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) offer the opportunity to transform quality improvement by using clinical data for comparing hospital performance without the burden of chart abstraction. However, current performance measures using EHRs are lacking. METHODS: With support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), we developed an outcome measure of hospital risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction for use with EHR data. As no appropriate source of EHR data are currently available, we merged clinical registry data from the Action Registry-Get With The Guidelines with claims data from CMS to develop the risk model (2009 data for development, 2010 data for validation). We selected candidate variables that could be feasibly extracted from current EHRs and do not require changes to standard clinical practice or data collection. We used logistic regression with stepwise selection and bootstrapping simulation for model development. RESULTS: The final risk model included 5 variables available on presentation: age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, troponin ratio, and creatinine level. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78. Hospital risk-standardized mortality rates ranged from 9.6% to 13.1%, with a median of 10.7%. The odds of mortality for a high-mortality hospital (+1 SD) were 1.37 times those for a low-mortality hospital (-1 SD). CONCLUSIONS: This measure represents the first outcome measure endorsed by the National Quality Forum for public reporting of hospital quality based on clinical data in the EHR. By being compatible with current clinical practice and existing EHR systems, this measure is a model for future quality improvement measures.
BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) offer the opportunity to transform quality improvement by using clinical data for comparing hospital performance without the burden of chart abstraction. However, current performance measures using EHRs are lacking. METHODS: With support from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), we developed an outcome measure of hospital risk-standardized 30-day mortality rates for patients with acute myocardial infarction for use with EHR data. As no appropriate source of EHR data are currently available, we merged clinical registry data from the Action Registry-Get With The Guidelines with claims data from CMS to develop the risk model (2009 data for development, 2010 data for validation). We selected candidate variables that could be feasibly extracted from current EHRs and do not require changes to standard clinical practice or data collection. We used logistic regression with stepwise selection and bootstrapping simulation for model development. RESULTS: The final risk model included 5 variables available on presentation: age, heart rate, systolic blood pressure, troponin ratio, and creatinine level. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78. Hospital risk-standardized mortality rates ranged from 9.6% to 13.1%, with a median of 10.7%. The odds of mortality for a high-mortality hospital (+1 SD) were 1.37 times those for a low-mortality hospital (-1 SD). CONCLUSIONS: This measure represents the first outcome measure endorsed by the National Quality Forum for public reporting of hospital quality based on clinical data in the EHR. By being compatible with current clinical practice and existing EHR systems, this measure is a model for future quality improvement measures.
Authors: Tuyet A Nguyen; Jonathan P DeShazo; Leroy R Thacker; Puneet Puri; Arun J Sanyal Journal: Alcohol Clin Exp Res Date: 2016-05-05 Impact factor: 3.455
Authors: Rachel P Dreyer; Rosanna Tavella; Jeptha P Curtis; Yongfei Wang; Sivabaskari Pauspathy; John Messenger; John S Rumsfeld; Thomas M Maddox; Harlan M Krumholz; John A Spertus; John F Beltrame Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2020-02-14 Impact factor: 35.855
Authors: D C Eindhoven; L N van Staveren; J A van Erkelens; D E Ikkersheim; S C Cannegieter; V A W M Umans; A Mosterd; J van Wijngaarden; M J Schalij; C J W Borleffs Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 2.380
Authors: Kumar Dharmarajan; Robert L McNamara; Yongfei Wang; Frederick A Masoudi; Joseph S Ross; Erica E Spatz; Nihar R Desai; James A de Lemos; Gregg C Fonarow; Paul A Heidenreich; Deepak L Bhatt; Susannah M Bernheim; Lara E Slattery; Yosef M Khan; Jeptha P Curtis Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2017-09-26 Impact factor: 51.598