Cargando…

Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures

BACKGROUND: The Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement recently proposed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)‐specific process measures. However, information about hospital performance on these measures and the association of PCI process and outcomes measures are not available. METHODS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chui, Philip W., Parzynski, Craig S., Nallamothu, Brahmajee K., Masoudi, Frederick A., Krumholz, Harlan M., Curtis, Jeptha P.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5524055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28446493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.004276
_version_ 1783252410109526016
author Chui, Philip W.
Parzynski, Craig S.
Nallamothu, Brahmajee K.
Masoudi, Frederick A.
Krumholz, Harlan M.
Curtis, Jeptha P.
author_facet Chui, Philip W.
Parzynski, Craig S.
Nallamothu, Brahmajee K.
Masoudi, Frederick A.
Krumholz, Harlan M.
Curtis, Jeptha P.
author_sort Chui, Philip W.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement recently proposed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)‐specific process measures. However, information about hospital performance on these measures and the association of PCI process and outcomes measures are not available. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry with Medicare claims data to assess hospital performance on established PCI process measures (aspirin, thienopyridines, and statins on discharge; door‐to‐balloon time; and referral to cardiac rehabilitation), newly proposed PCI process measures (documentation of contrast dose, glomerular filtration rate, and PCI indication; appropriate indication for elective PCI; and use of embolic protection device), and a composite of all process measures. We calculated weighted pair‐wise correlations between each set of process metrics and performed weighted correlation analyses to assess the association between composite measure performance with corresponding 30‐day risk‐standardized mortality and readmission rates. We reported the variance in risk‐standardized 30‐day outcome rates explained by process measures. We analyzed 1 268 860 PCIs from 1331 hospitals. For many process measures, median hospital performance exceeded 90%. We found strong correlations between medication‐specific process measures (P<0.01) and weak correlations between hospital performance on the newly proposed and established process measures. The composite process measure explained only 1.3% and 2.0% of the observed variation in mortality and readmission rates, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital performance on many PCI‐specific process measures demonstrated little opportunity for improvement and explained only a small percentage of hospital variation in 30‐day outcomes. Efforts to measure and improve hospital quality for PCI patients should focus on both process and outcome measures.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5524055
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-55240552017-08-02 Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures Chui, Philip W. Parzynski, Craig S. Nallamothu, Brahmajee K. Masoudi, Frederick A. Krumholz, Harlan M. Curtis, Jeptha P. J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: The Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement recently proposed percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)‐specific process measures. However, information about hospital performance on these measures and the association of PCI process and outcomes measures are not available. METHODS AND RESULTS: We linked the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) CathPCI Registry with Medicare claims data to assess hospital performance on established PCI process measures (aspirin, thienopyridines, and statins on discharge; door‐to‐balloon time; and referral to cardiac rehabilitation), newly proposed PCI process measures (documentation of contrast dose, glomerular filtration rate, and PCI indication; appropriate indication for elective PCI; and use of embolic protection device), and a composite of all process measures. We calculated weighted pair‐wise correlations between each set of process metrics and performed weighted correlation analyses to assess the association between composite measure performance with corresponding 30‐day risk‐standardized mortality and readmission rates. We reported the variance in risk‐standardized 30‐day outcome rates explained by process measures. We analyzed 1 268 860 PCIs from 1331 hospitals. For many process measures, median hospital performance exceeded 90%. We found strong correlations between medication‐specific process measures (P<0.01) and weak correlations between hospital performance on the newly proposed and established process measures. The composite process measure explained only 1.3% and 2.0% of the observed variation in mortality and readmission rates, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital performance on many PCI‐specific process measures demonstrated little opportunity for improvement and explained only a small percentage of hospital variation in 30‐day outcomes. Efforts to measure and improve hospital quality for PCI patients should focus on both process and outcome measures. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-04-26 /pmc/articles/PMC5524055/ /pubmed/28446493 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.004276 Text en © 2017 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Original Research
Chui, Philip W.
Parzynski, Craig S.
Nallamothu, Brahmajee K.
Masoudi, Frederick A.
Krumholz, Harlan M.
Curtis, Jeptha P.
Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures
title Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures
title_full Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures
title_fullStr Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures
title_full_unstemmed Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures
title_short Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures
title_sort hospital performance on percutaneous coronary intervention process and outcomes measures
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5524055/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28446493
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.004276
work_keys_str_mv AT chuiphilipw hospitalperformanceonpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionprocessandoutcomesmeasures
AT parzynskicraigs hospitalperformanceonpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionprocessandoutcomesmeasures
AT nallamothubrahmajeek hospitalperformanceonpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionprocessandoutcomesmeasures
AT masoudifredericka hospitalperformanceonpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionprocessandoutcomesmeasures
AT krumholzharlanm hospitalperformanceonpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionprocessandoutcomesmeasures
AT curtisjepthap hospitalperformanceonpercutaneouscoronaryinterventionprocessandoutcomesmeasures