Pamela B de Cordova1, Mary L Johansen, Kathryn A Riman, Jeannette Rogowski. 1. Pamela B. de Cordova, PhD, RN-BC Assistant Professor, Research Faculty, New Jersey Collaborating Center for Nursing, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Newark. Mary L. Johansen PhD, NE-BC, RN Clinical Associate Professor and Associate Director, New Jersey Collaborating Center for Nursing, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Newark. Kathryn A. Riman BS, RN Undergraduate Honors Nursing Student, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, Newark. Jeannette Rogowski PhD University Professor, Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, New Brunswick.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recognized by both the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology as an optimal therapy to treat patients experiencing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A health policy aimed at improving outcomes for the patient with AMI is public reporting of whether a patient received a PCI. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effect of public reporting for patients with AMI, specifically for those patients who receive PCI. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, Google Scholar, and PubMed were searched from inception through August 2017. Articles were selected for inclusion if researchers evaluated public reporting and included an outcome for whether a patient received a PCI during hospitalization for an AMI. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated, and findings were synthesized. RESULTS: Eight studies of high methodological quality were included in the review. Most studies found that, in areas of public reporting, patients were less likely to undergo a PCI and high-risk patients did not undergo a PCI. Researchers also found that patients with AMI had lower in-hospital mortality after the implementation of public reporting, but only if these patients received a PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Although public reporting may have had intentions of improving care, there is strong evidence that this policy did not result in more timely PCIs or improved mortality of patients with AMI. In fact, public reporting resulted in unintended consequences of not providing care for the most vulnerable patients in fear of an adverse outcome.
BACKGROUND: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is recognized by both the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology as an optimal therapy to treat patients experiencing acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. A health policy aimed at improving outcomes for the patient with AMI is public reporting of whether a patient received a PCI. OBJECTIVE: A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effect of public reporting for patients with AMI, specifically for those patients who receive PCI. METHODS: EMBASE, MEDLINE, Academic Search Premier, Google Scholar, and PubMed were searched from inception through August 2017. Articles were selected for inclusion if researchers evaluated public reporting and included an outcome for whether a patient received a PCI during hospitalization for an AMI. Methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated, and findings were synthesized. RESULTS: Eight studies of high methodological quality were included in the review. Most studies found that, in areas of public reporting, patients were less likely to undergo a PCI and high-risk patients did not undergo a PCI. Researchers also found that patients with AMI had lower in-hospital mortality after the implementation of public reporting, but only if these patients received a PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Although public reporting may have had intentions of improving care, there is strong evidence that this policy did not result in more timely PCIs or improved mortality of patients with AMI. In fact, public reporting resulted in unintended consequences of not providing care for the most vulnerable patients in fear of an adverse outcome.
Authors: Tim Eckmanns; Jan Bessert; Michael Behnke; Petra Gastmeier; Henning Ruden Journal: Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol Date: 2006-08-22 Impact factor: 3.254
Authors: Johanna Vostok; William Lapsley; Nora McElroy; Shauna Onofrey; Eileen McHale; Nicole Johnson; Alfred DeMaria Journal: Am J Infect Control Date: 2012-10-24 Impact factor: 2.918
Authors: Matthew A Cavender; Karen E Joynt; Craig S Parzynski; Frederick S Resnic; John S Rumsfeld; Mauro Moscucci; Frederick A Masoudi; Jeptha P Curtis; Eric D Peterson; Hitinder S Gurm Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 2015-03-12 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: David M Shahian; Fred H Edwards; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Richard L Prager; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Cynthia M Shewan; Sean M O'Brien; Eric D Peterson; Frederick L Grover Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: David M Shahian; Fred H Edwards; Jeffrey P Jacobs; Richard L Prager; Sharon-Lise T Normand; Cynthia M Shewan; Sean M O'Brien; Eric D Peterson; Frederick L Grover Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2011-09 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Thomas F Boyden; Karen E Joynt; Lisa McCoy; Megan L Neely; Matthew A Cavender; Simon Dixon; Frederick A Masoudi; Eric Peterson; Sunil V Rao; Hitinder S Gurm Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 4.749