Quality indicators for cardiac care: national standards in a community context

Abstract

There is general support for this set of quality indicators, with the caveat that data should be carefully interpreted in the context of each community in which they are applied.

Dissemination of performance information and continuous improvement

“…3.3 Knowledge: the generated and disseminated content 3.3.1 Relevance. A great number of articles address the issue of the relevance of the knowledge to users (Ginsburg, 2003;Mor, 2005;Cheng and Thompson, 2006;Epstein, 1998;Mannion and Davies, 2002;Marshall et al, 2000a, b;Burack et al, 1999; Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, 2004; Leatherman and McCarthy, 1999;Marshall et al, 2003;Mannion and Goddard, 2003;Mason and Street, 2006;Casalino et al, 2007b;Narins et al, 2005;Davies, 1998;Epstein, 1995;Hickey et al, 2004;Spoeri and Ullman, 1997;Cheng et al, 2010;Krumholz et al, 2006;Putnam et al, 2006;Ireson et al, 2002;Tu and Cameron, 2003;Matthes et al, 2010;Werner et al, 2008b;West et al, 1997;Barr et al, 2002;Chiu et al, 2007;Clough et al, 2002;Rowan et al, 2006;Poker et al, 2004;Robinowitz and Dudley, 2006;Dimick et al, 2010). It is examined from different points-of-view, starting with indicator selection (Epstein, 1998;Marshall et al, 2000a, b;Casalino et al, 2007b;Narins et al, 2005;Poker et al, 2004) and then in terms of more general aspects: the completeness of the knowledge and how it is contextualized (Davies, 1998;…”

“…Several articles note how certain types of information are of particular interest to users. Even though clinical knowledge has the advantage of closely reflecting the reality of health professionals (Krumholz et al, 2006), it does not allow them to see how their practice influences health outcomes (Badger, 1998;Putnam et al, 2006;Ireson et al, 2002). It is easier to act on processes than on health outcomes and, information on processes is essential in order to understand how health outcomes have been obtained.…”

“…Several approaches are suggested for dealing with these issues. Encouraging a transparent conceptual framework and methodology improves confidence in the quality of the knowledge (Baker et al, 2003;Putnam et al, 2006;Rowan et al, 2006;Epstein, 2006). Involving stakeholders in the implementation of the measurement system is also worthwhile (Mannion and Goddard, 2003;Bensimon et al, 2004;Rowan et al, 2006), particularly when it is part of a continuous and iterative improvement process (Mannion and Davies, 2002).…”

<p>Composite Outcomes of Mortality and Readmission in Patients with Heart Failure: Retrospective Review of Administrative Datasets</p>

“…Heart failure (HF) is a common cardiovascular condition in the aging population of most developed countries. [1][2][3][4] These patients are a priority for both healthcare regulators and professionals. Despite the significant technological advancements experienced in recent years, HF patients show a high risk of 30-day mortality when admitted to hospital 2,5 as well as a high probability of incurring multiple, 30-day unplanned readmission.…”

Quality indicators for cardiovascular primary care

“…Our previous qualitative research found that the hospitalbased QIs developed by CCORT were generally acceptable to the community physicians who participated (9). Additionally, we were told that indicators were also needed for ambulatory primary care practice, where much of cardiovascular disease care occurs.…”