Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of heart failure patients at high risk for admission - A systematic review of randomized trials

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to determine whether multidisciplinary strategies improve outcomes for heart failure (HF) patients. BACKGROUND Because the prognosis of HF remains poor despite pharmacotherapy, there is increasing interest in alternative models of care delivery for these patients. METHODS Randomized trials of multidisciplinary management programs in HF were identified by searching electronic databases and bibliographies and via contact with experts. RESULTS Twenty-nine trials (5,039 patients) were identified but were not pooled, because of considerable heterogeneity. A priori, we divided the interventions into homogeneous groups that were suitable for pooling. Strategies that incorporated follow-up by a specialized multidisciplinary team (either in a clinic or a non-clinic setting) reduced mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 0.96), HF hospitalizations (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.63 to 0.87), and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.71 to 0.92). Programs that focused on enhancing patient self-care activities reduced HF hospitalizations (RR 0.66, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.83) and all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.93) but had no effect on mortality (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.94). Strategies that employed telephone contact and advised patients to attend their primary care physician in the event of deterioration reduced HF hospitalizations (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.99) but not mortality (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.29) or all-cause hospitalizations (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.20). In 15 of 18 trials that evaluated cost, multidisciplinary strategies were cost-saving. CONCLUSIONS Multidisciplinary strategies for the management of patients with HF reduce HF hospitalizations. Those programs that involve specialized follow-up by a multidisciplinary team also reduce mortality and all-cause hospitalizations. (C) 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

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.

Effects of a nurse-led, clinic and home-based intervention on recurrent hospital use in chronic heart failure

Background: Few studies have examined the potential benefits of specialist nurse-led programs of care involving home and clinic-based follow-up to optimise the post-discharge management of chronic heart failure (CHF). Objective: To determine the effectiveness of a hybrid program of clinic plus home-based intervention (C+HBI) in reducing recurrent hospitalisation in CHF patients. Methods: CHF patients with evidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction admitted to two hospitals in Northern England were assigned to a C+HBI lasting 6 months post-discharge (n=58) or to usual, post-discharge care (UC: n=48) via a cluster randomization protocol. The co-primary endpoints were death or unplanned readmission (event-free survival) and rate of recurrent, all-cause readmission within 6 months of hospital discharge. Results: During study follow-up, more UC patients had an unplanned readmission for any cause (44% vs. 22%: P=0.0191 OR 1.95 95% CI 1.10-3.48) whilst 7 (15%) versus 5 (9%) UC and C+HBI patients, respectively, died (P=NS). Overall, 15 (26%) C+HBI versus 21 (44%) UC patients experienced a primary endpoint. C+HBI was associated with a non-significant, 45% reduction in the risk of death or readmission when adjusting for potential confounders (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.28-1.08: P=0.08). Overall, C+HBI patients accumulated significantly fewer unplanned readmissions (15 vs. 45: P