Are diagnosis specific outcome indicators based on administrative data useful in assessing quality of hospital care?

Background: Hospital performance reports based on administrative data should distinguish differences in quality of care between hospitals from case mix related variation and random error effects. A study was undertaken to determine which of 12 diagnosis-outcome indicators measured across all hospitals in one state had significant risk adjusted systematic ( or special cause) variation (SV) suggesting differences in quality of care. For those that did, we determined whether SV persists within hospital peer groups, whether indicator results correlate at the individual hospital level, and how many adverse outcomes would be avoided if all hospitals achieved indicator values equal to the best performing 20% of hospitals. Methods: All patients admitted during a 12 month period to 180 acute care hospitals in Queensland, Australia with heart failure (n = 5745), acute myocardial infarction ( AMI) ( n = 3427), or stroke ( n = 2955) were entered into the study. Outcomes comprised in-hospital deaths, long hospital stays, and 30 day readmissions. Regression models produced standardised, risk adjusted diagnosis specific outcome event ratios for each hospital. Systematic and random variation in ratio distributions for each indicator were then apportioned using hierarchical statistical models. Results: Only five of 12 (42%) diagnosis-outcome indicators showed significant SV across all hospitals ( long stays and same diagnosis readmissions for heart failure; in-hospital deaths and same diagnosis readmissions for AMI; and in-hospital deaths for stroke). Significant SV was only seen for two indicators within hospital peer groups ( same diagnosis readmissions for heart failure in tertiary hospitals and inhospital mortality for AMI in community hospitals). Only two pairs of indicators showed significant correlation. If all hospitals emulated the best performers, at least 20% of AMI and stroke deaths, heart failure long stays, and heart failure and AMI readmissions could be avoided. Conclusions: Diagnosis-outcome indicators based on administrative data require validation as markers of significant risk adjusted SV. Validated indicators allow quantification of realisable outcome benefits if all hospitals achieved best performer levels. The overall level of quality of care within single institutions cannot be inferred from the results of one or a few indicators.

Optimising care of acute coronary syndromes in three Australian hospitals

Objective. To improve quality of in-hospital care of patients with acute coronary syndromes using a multifaceted quality improvement program. Design. Prospective, before and after study of the effects of quality improvement interventions between October 2000 and August 2002. Quality of care of patients admitted between 1 October 2000 and 16 April 2001 (baseline) was compared with that of those admitted between 15 February 2002 and 31 August 2002 (post-intervention). Setting. Three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Australia. Study participants. Consecutive patients (n = 1594) admitted to hospital with acute coronary syndrome [mean age 68 years (SD 14 years); 65% males]. Interventions. Clinical guidelines, reminder tools, and educational interventions; 6-monthly performance feedback; pharmacist-mediated patient education program; and facilitation of multidisciplinary review of work practices. Main outcome measures. Changes in key quality indicators relating to timing of electrocardiogram (ECG) and thrombolysis in emergency departments, serum lipid measurement, prescription of adjunctive drugs, and secondary prevention. Results. Comparing post-intervention with baseline patients, increases occurred in the proportions of eligible patients: (i) undergoing timely ECG (70% versus 61%; P = 0.04); (ii) prescribed angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (70% versus 60%; P = 0.002) and lipid-lowering agents (77% versus 68%; P = 0.005); (iii) receiving cardiac counselling in hospital (57% versus 48%; P = 0.009); and (iv) referred to cardiac rehabilitation (17% versus 8%; P < 0.001). Conclusions. Multifaceted approaches can improve care processes for patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes. Care processes under direct clinician control changed more quickly than those reliant on complex system factors. Identifying and overcoming organizational impediments to quality improvement deserves greater attention.

Achieving better in-hospital and after-hospital care of patients with acute cardiac disease

In patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and congestive heart failure (CHF), evidence suggests opportunities for improving in-hospital and after hospital care, patient self-care, and hospital-community integration. A multidisciplinary quality improvement program was designed and instigated in Brisbane in October 2000 involving 250 clinicians at three teaching hospitals, 1080 general practitioners (GPs) from five Divisions of General Practice, 1594 patients with ACS and 904 patients with CHF. Quality improvement interventions were implemented over 17 months after a 6-month baseline period and included: clinical decision support (clinical practice guidelines, reminders, checklists, clinical pathways); educational interventions (seminars, academic detailing); regular performance feedback; patient self-management strategies; and hospital-community integration (discharge referral summaries; community pharmacist liaison; patient prompts to attend GPs). Using a before-after study design to assess program impact, significantly more program patients compared with historical controls received: ACS: Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and lipid-lowering agents at discharge, aspirin and beta-blockers at 3 months after discharge, inpatient cardiac counselling, and referral to outpatient cardiac rehabilitation. CHF. Assessment for reversible precipitants, use of prophylaxis for deep-venous thrombosis, beta-blockers at discharge, ACE inhibitors at 6 months after discharge, imaging of left ventricular function, and optimal management of blood pressure levels. Risk-adjusted mortality rates at 6 and 12 months decreased, respectively, from 9.8% to 7.4% (P=0.06) and from 13.4% to 10.1% (P= 0.06) for patients with ACS and from 22.8% to 15.2% (P < 0.001) and from 32.8% to 22.4% (P= 0.005) for patients with CHF. Quality improvement programs that feature multifaceted interventions across the continuum of care can change clinical culture, optimise care and improve clinical outcomes.

Determinants in the development of advanced nursing practice: a case study of primary-care settings in Hong Kong

Different factors have been shown to influence the development of models of advanced nursing practice (ANP) in primary-care settings. Although ANP is being developed in hospitals in Hong Kong, China, it remains undeveloped in primary care and little is known about the factors determining the development of such a model. The aims of the present study were to investigate the contribution of different models of nursing practice to the care provided in primary-care settings in Hong Kong, and to examine the determinants influencing the development of a model of ANP in such settings. A multiple case study design was selected using both qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection. Sampling methods reflected the population groups and stage of the case study. Sampling included a total population of 41 nurses from whom a secondary volunteer sample was drawn for face-to-face interviews. In each case study, a convenience sample of 70 patients were recruited, from whom 10 were selected purposively for a semi-structured telephone interview. An opportunistic sample of healthcare professionals was also selected. The within-case and cross-case analysis demonstrated four major determinants influencing the development of ANP: (1) current models of nursing practice; (2) the use of skills mix; (3) the perceived contribution of ANP to patient care; and (4) patients' expectations of care. The level of autonomy of individual nurses was considered particularly important. These determinants were used to develop a model of ANP for a primary-care setting. In conclusion, although the findings highlight the complexity determining the development and implementation of ANP in primary care, the proposed model suggests that definitions of advanced practice are appropriate to a range of practice models and cultural settings. However, the findings highlight the importance of assessing the effectiveness of such models in terms of cost and long-term patient outcomes.

Controlled trial of multidisciplinary care teams for acutely ill medical inpatients: enhanced multidisciplinary care

Background: Acute hospital general medicine services care for ageing complex patients, using the skills of a range of health-care providers. Evidence suggests that comprehensive early assessment and discharge planning may improve efficiency and outcomes of care in older medical patients. Aim: To enhance assessment, communication, care and discharge planning by restructuring consistent, patient-centred multidisciplinary teams in a general medicine service. Methods: Prospective controlled trial enrolling 1538 consecutive medical inpatients. Intervention units with additional allied health staff formed consistent multidisciplinary teams aligned with inpatient admitting units rather than wards; implemented improved communication processes for early information collection and sharing between disciplines; and specified shared explicit discharge goals. Control units continued traditional, referral-based multidisciplinary models with existing staffing levels. Results: Access to allied health services was significantly enhanced. There was a trend to reduced index length of stay in the intervention units (7.3 days vs 7.8 days in control units, P = 0.18), with no change in 6-month readmissions. in-hospital mortality was reduced from 6.4 to 3.9% (P = 0.03); less patients experienced functional decline in hospital (P = 0.04) and patients' ratings of health status improved (P = 0.02). Additional staffing costs were balanced by potential bed-day savings. Conclusion: This model of enhanced multidisciplinary inpatient care has provided sustainable efficiency gains for the hospital and improved patient outcomes.

A pragmatic 2 × 2 × 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial of educational outreach visiting and case conferencing in palliative care—methodology of the Palliative Care Trial [ISRCTN 81117481]

The demand for palliative care is increasing, yet there are few data on the best models of care nor well-validated interventions that translate current evidence into clinical practice. Supporting multidisciplinary patient-centered palliative care while successfully conducting a large clinical trial is a challenge. The Palliative Care Trial (PCT) is a pragmatic 2 x 2 x 2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial that tests the ability of educational outreach visiting and case conferencing to improve patient-based outcomes such as performance status and pain intensity. Four hundred sixty-one consenting patients and their general practitioners (GPs) were randomized to the following: (1) GP educational outreach visiting versus usual care, (2) Structured patient and caregiver educational outreach visiting versus usual care and (3) A coordinated palliative care model of case conferencing versus the standard model of palliative care in Adelaide, South Australia (3:1 randomization). Main outcome measures included patient functional status over time, pain intensity, and resource utilization. Participants were followed longitudinally until death or November 30, 2004. The interventions are aimed at translating current evidence into clinical practice and there was particular attention in the trial's design to addressing common pitfalls for clinical studies in palliative care. Given the need for evidence about optimal interventions and service delivery models that improve the care of people with life-limiting illness, the results of this rigorous, high quality clinical trial will inform practice. Initial results are expected in mid 2005. (c) 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Is mortality from heart failure increasing in Australia? An analysis of official data on mortality for 1997-2003

Objective To assess whether trends in mortality from heart failure(HF) in Australia are due to a change in awareness of the condition or real changes in its epidemiology. Methods We carried out a retrospective analysis of official data on national mortality data between 1997 and 2003. A death was attributed to HF if the death certificate mentioned HF as either the underlying cause of death (UCD) or among the contributory factors. Findings From a total of 907 242 deaths, heart failure was coded as the UCD for 29 341 (3.2%) and was mentioned anywhere on the death certificate in 135 268 (14.9%). Between 1997 and 2003, there were decreases in the absolute numbers of deaths and in the age-specific and age-standardized mortality rates for HF either as UCD or mentioned anywhere for both sexes. HF was mentioned for 24.6% and 17.8% of deaths attributed to ischaemic heart disease and circulatory disease, respectively, and these proportions remained unchanged over the period of study. In addition, HF as UCD accounted for 8.3% of deaths attributed to circulatory disease and this did not change materially from 1997 to 2003. Conclusion The decline in mortality from HF measured as either number of deaths or rate probably reflects a real change in the epidemiology of HF. Population-based studies are required to determine accurately the contributions of changes in incidence, survival and demographic factors to the evolving epidemiology of HF.