Literature DB >> 29858762

Impact of attributed audit on procedural performance in cardiac electrophysiology catheter laboratory.

V Sawhney1, E Volkova2, M Shaukat2, F Khan2, O Segal2, S Ahsan2, A Chow2, V Ezzat2, M Finlay2, P Lambiase2, M Lowe2, M Dhinoja2, S Sporton2, M J Earley2, R J Hunter2, R J Schilling2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Audit has played a key role in monitoring and improving clinical practice. However, audit often fails to drive change as summative institutional data alone may be insufficient to do so. We hypothesised that the practice of attributed audit, wherein each individual's procedural performance is presented will have a greater impact on clinical practice. This hypothesis was tested in an observational study evaluating improvement in fluoroscopy times for AF ablation.
METHODS: Retrospective analyses of fluoroscopy times in AF ablations at the Barts Heart Centre (BHC) from 2012-2017. Fluoroscopy times were compared pre- and post- the introduction of attributed audit in 2012 at St Bartholomew's Hospital (SBH). In order to test the hypothesis, this concept was introduced to a second group of experienced operators from the Heart Hospital (HH) as part of a merger of the two institutions in 2015 and change in fluoroscopy times recorded.
RESULTS: A significant drop in fluoroscopy times (33.3 ± 9.14 to 8.95 ± 2.50, p < 0.0001) from 2012-2014 was noted after the introduction of attributed audit. At the time of merger, a significant difference in fluoroscopy times between operators from the two centres was seen in 2015. Each operator's procedural performance was shared openly at the audit meeting. Subsequent audits showed a steady decrease in fluoroscopy times for each operator with the fluoroscopy time (min, mean±SD) decreasing from 13.29 ± 7.3 in 2015 to 8.84 ± 4.8 (p < 0.0001) in 2017 across the entire group.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematic improvement in fluoroscopy times for AF ablation procedures was noted byevaluating individual operators' performance. Attributing data to physicians in attributed audit can promptsignificant improvement and hence should be adopted in clinical practice.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attributed audit; Clinical practice; Electrophysiology catheter laboratory; Quality improvement

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29858762     DOI: 10.1007/s10840-018-0383-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  6 in total

1.  2012 HRS/EHRA/ECAS Expert Consensus Statement on Catheter and Surgical Ablation of Atrial Fibrillation: recommendations for patient selection, procedural techniques, patient management and follow-up, definitions, endpoints, and research trial design.

Authors:  Hugh Calkins; Karl Heinz Kuck; Riccardo Cappato; Josep Brugada; A John Camm; Shih-Ann Chen; Harry J G Crijns; Ralph J Damiano; D Wyn Davies; John DiMarco; James Edgerton; Kenneth Ellenbogen; Michael D Ezekowitz; David E Haines; Michel Haissaguerre; Gerhard Hindricks; Yoshito Iesaka; Warren Jackman; Jose Jalife; Pierre Jais; Jonathan Kalman; David Keane; Young-Hoon Kim; Paulus Kirchhof; George Klein; Hans Kottkamp; Koichiro Kumagai; Bruce D Lindsay; Moussa Mansour; Francis E Marchlinski; Patrick M McCarthy; J Lluis Mont; Fred Morady; Koonlawee Nademanee; Hiroshi Nakagawa; Andrea Natale; Stanley Nattel; Douglas L Packer; Carlo Pappone; Eric Prystowsky; Antonio Raviele; Vivek Reddy; Jeremy N Ruskin; Richard J Shemin; Hsuan-Ming Tsao; David Wilber
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2012-03-01       Impact factor: 5.214

Review 2.  Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.

Authors:  Noah Ivers; Gro Jamtvedt; Signe Flottorp; Jane M Young; Jan Odgaard-Jensen; Simon D French; Mary Ann O'Brien; Marit Johansen; Jeremy Grimshaw; Andrew D Oxman
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-06-13

3.  Impact on maternity professionals of novel approaches to clinical audit feedback.

Authors:  Martin Cameron; Gillian Penney; Graeme Maclennan; Sharon McLeer; Anne Walker
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.651

Review 4.  Clinical audit in the laboratory.

Authors:  R T Erasmus; A E Zemlin
Journal:  J Clin Pathol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.411

Review 5.  Clinical audit: still an important tool for improving healthcare.

Authors:  James Y Paton; Rita Ranmal; Jan Dudley
Journal:  Arch Dis Child Educ Pract Ed       Date:  2014-08-13       Impact factor: 1.309

Review 6.  Measuring against clinical standards.

Authors:  Charles D Shaw
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  2003-07-15       Impact factor: 3.786

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.