Cargando…

Development of a percutaneous coronary intervention patient level composite measure for a clinical quality registry

BACKGROUND: Composite measures combine data to provide a comprehensive view of patient outcomes. Despite composite measures being a valuable tool to assess post-intervention outcomes, the patient perspective is often missing. The purpose of this study was to develop a composite measure for an establ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ayton, Darshini, Soh, Sze-Ee, Morello, Renata, Ahern, Susannah, Earnest, Arul, Brennan, Angela, Lefkovits, Jeffrey, Evans, Susan, Reid, Christopher, Ruseckaite, Rasa, McNeil, John
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6969470/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31952535
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4814-6
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Composite measures combine data to provide a comprehensive view of patient outcomes. Despite composite measures being a valuable tool to assess post-intervention outcomes, the patient perspective is often missing. The purpose of this study was to develop a composite measure for an established cardiac outcome registry, by combining clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed specifically for this population (MC-PROM). METHODS: Two studies were undertaken. Study 1: Patients who had undergone a PCI at one of the three participating registry hospital sites completed the 5-item MC-PROM. Clinical outcome data for the patients (e.g. death, myocardial infarction, repeat vascularisation, new bleeding event) were collected 30 days post-intervention as part of routine data collection for the cardiac registry. Exploratory factor analysis of clinical outcomes and MC-PROM data was conducted to determine the minimum number of constructs to be included in a composite measure. Study 2: Clinical experts participated in a Delphi technique, consisting of three rounds of online surveys, to determine the clinical outcomes to be included and the weighting of the clinical outcomes and MC-PROM score for the composite measure. RESULTS: Study 1: Routine clinical outcomes and the MC-PROM data were collected from 266 patients 30 days post PCI. The MC-PROM score was not significantly correlated with any clinical outcomes. Study 2: There was a relatively consistent approach to the weighting of the clinical outcomes and MC-PROM items by the expert panel (n = 18) across the three surveys with the exception of the clinical outcome of ‘deceased at 30 days’. The final composite measure included five clinical outcomes within 30 days weighted at 90% (new heart failure, new myocardial infarction, new stent thrombosis, major bleeding event, new stroke, unplanned cardiac rehospitalisation) and the MC-PROM score (comprising 10% of the total weighting). CONCLUSIONS: A single patient level composite score, which incorporates weighted clinical outcomes and a PROM was developed. This composite score provides a more comprehensive reported measure of individual patient wellbeing at 30 days post their PCI-procedure, and may assist clinicians to further assess and address patient level factors that potentially impact on clinical recovery.