Ramin Zarrinkoub1,2,3, Thomas Kahan4,5, Sven-Erik Johansson1, Per Wändell1, Märit Mejhert4,6, Björn Wettermark7,8. 1. Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Division of Family Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Sweden. 2. Department of Healthcare Development, Public Healthcare Services Committee Administration, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Storvreten Primary Health Care Centre, Stockholm, Sweden. 4. Department of Clinical Sciences, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Danderyd Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 5. Department of Cardiology, Danderyd University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Department of Medicine, Ersta Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 7. Department of Healthcare Development, Public Healthcare Services Committee Administration, Stockholm County Council, Stockholm, Sweden. bjorn.wettermark@sll.se. 8. Department of Medicine Solna, Unit for Clinical Epidemiology, Centre for Pharmacoepidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, SE-171 76, Stockholm, Sweden. bjorn.wettermark@sll.se.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The proportion of patients with heart failure (HF) treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is frequently used as quality indicator. This study aimed to compare agreement between different methods of calculating this quality indicator. In addition, characteristics for patients and care providers associated with a high proportion treated with ACEI or ARB were analyzed. METHODS: This Swedish cross-sectional register-based study was conducted in the Stockholm region (2.1 million inhabitants). The proportion of patients with HF treated with ACEI or ARB was calculated by different methods applied on an administrative database on healthcare consumption, diagnoses, and dispensed drugs and by self-reported data from all primary care centers in the region. RESULTS: A total of 32,677 patients recorded with a HF diagnosis 2008-2012 and alive July-December 2012 were identified. The proportion treated with ACEI or ARB varied depending on observation period and care provider included (range register 52-74 %). There was a large variation between different primary care centers (range register 36-88 %, range self-reported 8-100 %) and a poor agreement between methods (Bland-Altman; rhoc range 0.07-0.23). Predictors for high proportion treated were low age, high socioeconomic status, cardiovascular comorbidity, and diagnosis recorded both in primary care and in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: There is poor agreement between different methods to evaluate adherence to guidelines for drug treatment in HF. Differences between practices concerning patient age, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and care given by different providers should be taken into account in quality assessment.
BACKGROUND: The proportion of patients with heart failure (HF) treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) is frequently used as quality indicator. This study aimed to compare agreement between different methods of calculating this quality indicator. In addition, characteristics for patients and care providers associated with a high proportion treated with ACEI or ARB were analyzed. METHODS: This Swedish cross-sectional register-based study was conducted in the Stockholm region (2.1 million inhabitants). The proportion of patients with HF treated with ACEI or ARB was calculated by different methods applied on an administrative database on healthcare consumption, diagnoses, and dispensed drugs and by self-reported data from all primary care centers in the region. RESULTS: A total of 32,677 patients recorded with a HF diagnosis 2008-2012 and alive July-December 2012 were identified. The proportion treated with ACEI or ARB varied depending on observation period and care provider included (range register 52-74 %). There was a large variation between different primary care centers (range register 36-88 %, range self-reported 8-100 %) and a poor agreement between methods (Bland-Altman; rhoc range 0.07-0.23). Predictors for high proportion treated were low age, high socioeconomic status, cardiovascular comorbidity, and diagnosis recorded both in primary care and in hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: There is poor agreement between different methods to evaluate adherence to guidelines for drug treatment in HF. Differences between practices concerning patient age, socioeconomic status, comorbidity, and care given by different providers should be taken into account in quality assessment.
Authors: Alan S Go; Dariush Mozaffarian; Véronique L Roger; Emelia J Benjamin; Jarett D Berry; Michael J Blaha; Shifan Dai; Earl S Ford; Caroline S Fox; Sheila Franco; Heather J Fullerton; Cathleen Gillespie; Susan M Hailpern; John A Heit; Virginia J Howard; Mark D Huffman; Suzanne E Judd; Brett M Kissela; Steven J Kittner; Daniel T Lackland; Judith H Lichtman; Lynda D Lisabeth; Rachel H Mackey; David J Magid; Gregory M Marcus; Ariane Marelli; David B Matchar; Darren K McGuire; Emile R Mohler; Claudia S Moy; Michael E Mussolino; Robert W Neumar; Graham Nichol; Dilip K Pandey; Nina P Paynter; Matthew J Reeves; Paul D Sorlie; Joel Stein; Amytis Towfighi; Tanya N Turan; Salim S Virani; Nathan D Wong; Daniel Woo; Melanie B Turner Journal: Circulation Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Michael A Steinman; Liezel Dimaano; Carolyn A Peterson; Paul A Heidenreich; Sara J Knight; Kathy Z Fung; Peter J Kaboli Journal: Med Care Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Jonas F Ludvigsson; Eva Andersson; Anders Ekbom; Maria Feychting; Jeong-Lim Kim; Christina Reuterwall; Mona Heurgren; Petra Otterblad Olausson Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2011-06-09 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Axel C Carlsson; Per Wändell; Urban Ösby; Ramin Zarrinkoub; Björn Wettermark; Gunnar Ljunggren Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-07-18 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Anna Ohlsson; Bertil Lindahl; Ronnie Pingel; Marianne Hanning; Ragnar Westerling Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2020-02-17 Impact factor: 2.890