Quality of care of patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes

Background: Measurement and improvement of quality of care is a priority issue in health care. Patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) constitute a high-risk population whose care, if shown to be suboptimal on the basis of available research evidence, may benefit from quality improvement interventions. Aim: To evaluate the quality of in-hospital care for patients with ACS, using explicit quality indicators. Methods: Retrospective case note review was undertaken of 397 patients admitted to three teaching hospitals in Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, between 1 October 2000 and 17 April 2001. The main out-come measures were 12 process-of-care quality indicators, calculated as either: (i) the proportion of all patients who received specific interventions or (ii) the proportion of ideal patients who received -specific interventions (i.e. patients with clear indi-cations and lacking contraindications). Results: Quality indicators with values above 80% included: (i) patient selection for thrombolysis (100%) and discharge prescription of beta-blockers (84%), (ii) antiplatelet agents (94%) and (iii) lipid-lowering agents (82%). Indicators with values between 50% and 80% included: (i) timely per-formance of electrocardiogram (ECG) on admission (61%), (ii) early coronary angiography (75%), (iii) measurement of serum lipids (71%) and (iv) discharge prescription of angiotensin-converting-enzyme (ACE) inhibitors (73%). Indicators with values <50% included: (i) timely administration of thrombolysis (35%), (ii) non-invasive risk assessment (23%) and (ii) formal in-hospital and post-hospital cardiac rehabilitation (47% and 7%, respectively). Conclusion: There were delays in performing ECG and administering thrombolysis to patients who presented to emergency departments with ACS. Improvement is warranted in use of non-invasive procedures for identifying high-risk patients who may benefit from coronary revascularization as well as use of serum lipid measurements, ACE inhibitors and cardiac rehabilitation.

Oral administration of a 12% sucrose solution did not decrease behavioural indicators of distress in piglets undergoing tail docking, teeth clipping and ear notching

Sucrose has been shown to attenuate the behavioural response to painful procedures in human infants undergoing circumcision or blood collection via heelstick. Sucrose has also been found to have a behaviour-modifying effect in neonatal rats exposed to a hot plate. The effect was abolished in neonatal rats by injection of the opioid antagonist naltrexone, suggesting that it was mediated by endogenous opioids. In this experiment, the behaviour of 571 newborn Large White x Landrace hybrid piglets in a specific-pathogen-free piggery of the University of Queensland was recorded during and after the routine management practices of tail docking, ear notching and teeth clipping. Piglets were randomly assigned to receive 1.0 ml of a 12% sucrose solution (treatment group) or a placebo (1.0 ml of air) administered via syringe in the mouth, 60 s before commencement of one of the management procedures. Behaviours were recorded at the time of the procedure, and then 2 min after completion of the procedure. Piglets that received the sucrose solution did not behave significantly differently from piglets receiving the placebo. Regardless of whether sucrose or placebo was administered, piglets undergoing the routine management procedures showed significantly greater behavioural responses than piglets undergoing no procedure. It was concluded that under commercial conditions, a 12% sucrose solution administered I min prior to surgery was not effective in decreasing the behavioural indicators of distress in piglets undergoing routine management procedures, Further research into methods of minimising distress caused to piglets by these procedures is recommended.

Myocardial infarction and type II diabetes - preferential treatment for high risk patients?

Objectives: To compare variability of blood glucose concentration in patients with type II diabetes with (cases) and without (controls) myocardial infarction. A secondary objective was identification of predictive factors for higher blood glucose on discharge from hospital. Design: A retrospective matched case-control study. Participants: Medical notes of 101 type II diabetic patients admitted with a myocardial infarction (MI) and 101 type II diabetic patients (controls) matched on gender and age with no MI were reviewed. Blood glucose concentrations over two consecutive 48-h periods were collected. Demographic data and therapy on admission/discharge were also collected. Results: Patient characteristics were comparable on recruitment excluding family history of cardiovascular disease (P =0.003), dyslipidaemia (P =0.004) and previous history of MI (P =0.007). Variability of blood glucose in cases was greater over the first 48 h compared with the second 48 h (P =0.03), and greater when compared with controls over the first 48 h (P =0.01). Cases with blood glucose on discharge >8.2 mmol / L (n =45) were less likely to have a history of previous MI (P =0.04), ischaemic heart disease (P =0.03) or hypertension (P =0.02). Conclusions: Type II diabetics with an MI have higher and more variable blood glucose concentrations during the first 48 h of admission. Only cardiovascular 'high risk' patients had target blood glucose set on discharge. The desirability of all MI patients with diabetes, having standardized-glucose infusions to reduce variability of blood glucose, should be evaluated in a randomized controlled trial.

Impact numbers: measures of risk factor impact on the whole population from case-control and cohort studies

Objective: To describe new measures of risk from case-control and cohort studies, which are simple to understand and relate to numbers of the population at risk. Design: Theoretical development of new measures of risk. Setting: Review of literature and previously described measures. Main results: The new measures are: (1) the population impact number (PIN), the number of those in the whole population among whom one case is attributable to the exposure or risk factor (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the population attributable risk),- (2) the case impact number (CIN) the number of people with the disease or outcome for whom one case will be attributable to the exposure or risk factor (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the population attributable fraction); (3) the exposure impact number (EIN) the number of people with the exposure among whom one excess case is attributable to the exposure (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the attributable risk); (4) the exposed cases impact number (ECIN) the number of exposed cases among whom one case is attributable to the exposure (this is equivalent to the reciprocal of the aetiological fraction). The impact number reflects the number of people in each population (the whole population, the cases, all those exposed, and the exposed cases) among whom one case is attributable to the particular risk factor. Conclusions: These new measures should help communicate the impact on a population, of estimates of risk derived from cohort or case-control studies.