Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of pharmacotherapy in persons with poorly controlled chronic conditions has been proposed as a clinically meaningful process measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: To validate measures of treatment intensification by evaluating their associations with subsequent control in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus across 35 medical facility populations in Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. DESIGN: Hierarchical analyses of associations of improvements in facility-level treatment intensification rates from 2001 to 2003 with patient-level risk factor levels at the end of 2003. PATIENTS: Members (515,072 and 626,130; age >20 years) with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes mellitus in 2001 and 2003, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment intensification for each risk factor defined as an increase in number of drug classes prescribed, of dosage for at least 1 drug, or switching to a drug from another class within 3 months of observed poor risk factor control. RESULTS: Facility-level improvements in treatment intensification rates between 2001 and 2003 were strongly associated with greater likelihood of being in control at the end of 2003 (P < or = 0.05 for each risk factor) after adjustment for patient- and facility-level covariates. Compared with facility rankings based solely on control, addition of percentages of poorly controlled patients who received treatment intensification changed 2003 rankings substantially: 14%, 51%, and 29% of the facilities changed ranks by 5 or more positions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification is tightly linked to improved control. Thus, it deserves consideration as a process measure for motivating quality improvement and possibly for measuring clinical performance.

Weekend versus weekday admission and mortality after acute pulmonary embolism.

BACKGROUND: Optimal management of acute pulmonary embolism (PE) requires medical expertise, diagnostic testing, and therapies that may not be available consistently throughout the entire week. We sought to assess whether associations exist between weekday or weekend admission and mortality and length of hospital stay for patients hospitalized with PE. METHODS AND RESULTS: We evaluated patients discharged with a primary diagnosis of PE from 186 acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania (January 2000 to November 2002). We used random-effect logistic models to study the association between weekend admission and 30-day mortality and used discrete survival models to study the association between weekend admission and time to hospital discharge, adjusting for hospital (region, size, and teaching status) and patient factors (race, insurance, severity of illness, and use of thrombolytic therapy). Among 15 531 patient discharges with PE, 3286 patients (21.2%) had been admitted on a weekend. Patients admitted on weekends had a higher unadjusted 30-day mortality rate (11.1% versus 8.8%) than patients admitted on weekdays, with no difference in length of stay. Patients admitted on weekends had significantly greater adjusted odds of dying (odds ratio 1.17, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.34) than patients admitted on weekdays. The higher mortality among patients hospitalized on weekends was driven by the increased mortality rate among the most severely ill patients. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PE who are admitted on weekends have a significantly higher short-term mortality than patients admitted on weekdays. Quality-improvement efforts should aim to ensure a consistent approach to the management of PE 7 days a week.

Physicians' estimates of the 10 year cardiovascular risk in hypertensive patients: an evaluation in primary care physicians in training.

To evaluate how young physicians in training perceive their patients' cardiovascular risk based on the medical charts and their clinical judgment. Cross sectional observational study. University outpatient clinic, Lausanne, Switzerland. Two hundred hypertensive patients and 50 non-hypertensive patients with at least one cardiovascular risk factor. Comparison of the absolute 10-year cardiovascular risk calculated by a computer program based on the Framingham score and adapted for physicians by the WHO/ISH with the perceived risk as assessed clinically by the physicians. Physicians underestimated the 10-year cardiovascular risk of their patients compared to that calculated with the Framingham score. Concordance between methods was 39% for hypertensive patients and 30% for non-hypertensive patients. Underestimation of cardiovascular risks for hypertensive patients was related to the fact they had a stabilized systolic blood pressure under 140 mm Hg (OR = 2.1 [1.1; 4.1]). These data show that young physicians in training often have an incorrect perception of the cardiovascular risk of their patients with a tendency to underestimate the risk. However, the calculated risk could also be slightly overestimated when applying the Framingham Heart Study model to a Swiss population. To implement a systematic evaluation of risk factors in primary care a greater emphasis should be placed on the teaching of cardiovascular risk evaluation and on the implementation of quality improvement programs.