Impact of on-site cardiac catheterization on resource utilization and fatal and non-fatal outcomes after acute myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND: Patterns of care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) strongly depend on the availability of on-site cardiac catheterization facilities. Although the management found at hospitals without on-site catheterization does not lead to increased mortality, little it known about its impact on resource utilization and non-fatal outcomes. METHODS: We identified all patients (n = 35,289) admitted with a first AMI in the province of Quebec between January 1, 1996 and March 31, 1999 using population-based administrative databases. Medical resource utilization and non-fatal and fatal outcomes were compared among patients admitted to hospitals with and without on-site cardiac catheterization facilities. RESULTS: Cardiac catheterization and PCI were more frequently performed among patients admitted to hospitals with catheterization facilities. However, non-invasive procedures were not used more frequently at hospitals without catheterization facilities. To the contrary, echocardiography [odds ratio (OR), 2.04; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.93–2.16] and multi-gated acquisition imaging (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.17–1.32) were used more frequently at hospitals with catheterization, and exercise treadmill testing (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.91–1.15) and Sestamibi/Thallium imaging (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.88–0.98) were used similarly at hospitals with and without catheterization. Use of anti-ischemic medications and frequency of emergency room and physician visits, were similar at both types of institutions. Readmission rates for AMI-related cardiac complications and mortality were also similar [adjusted hazard ratio, recurrent AMI: 1.02, 95% CI, 0.89–1.16; congestive heart failure: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.90–1.15; unstable angina: 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85–1.02; mortality: 0.99; 95% CI, 0.93–1.05)]. CONCLUSION: Although on-site availability of cardiac catheterization facilities is associated with greater use of invasive cardiac procedures, non-availability of catheterization did not translate into a higher use of non-invasive tests or have an impact on the fatal and non-fatal outcomes available for study in our administrative database

The relationship between baseline Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment subscale scores and implementation of hepatitis prevention services in substance use disorders treatment clinics: a case study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) is a measure of organizational readiness for implementing practice change in healthcare settings that is organized based on the core elements and sub-elements of the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services (PARIHS) framework. General support for the reliability and factor structure of the ORCA has been reported. However, no published study has examined the utility of the ORCA in a clinical setting. The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationship between baseline ORCA scores and implementation of hepatitis prevention services in substance use disorders (SUD) clinics.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Nine clinic teams from Veterans Health Administration SUD clinics across the United States participated in a six-month training program to promote evidence-based practices for hepatitis prevention. A representative from each team completed the ORCA evidence and context subscales at baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Eight of nine clinics reported implementation of at least one new hepatitis prevention practice after completing the six-month training program. Clinic teams were categorized by level of implementation-high (n = 4) versus low (n = 5)-based on how many hepatitis prevention practices were integrated into their clinics after completing the training program. High implementation teams had significantly higher scores on the patient experience and leadership culture subscales of the ORCA compared to low implementation teams. While not reaching significance in this small sample, high implementation clinics also had higher scores on the research, clinical experience, staff culture, leadership behavior, and measurement subscales as compared to low implementation clinics.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The results of this study suggest that the ORCA was able to measure differences in organizational factors at baseline between clinics that reported high and low implementation of practice recommendations at follow-up. This supports the use of the ORCA to describe factors related to implementing practice recommendations in clinical settings. Future research utilizing larger sample sizes will be essential to support these preliminary findings.</p

A cluster randomized controlled trial of a clinical pathway for hospital treatment of heart failure: study design and population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The hospital treatment of heart failure frequently does not follow published guidelines, potentially contributing to the high morbidity, mortality and economic cost of this disorder. Consequently the development of clinical pathways has the potential to reduce the current variability in care, enhance guideline adherence, and improve outcomes for patients. Despite enthusiasm and diffusion, the widespread acceptance of clinical pathways remain questionable because very little prospective controlled data demonstrated their effectiveness. The Experimental Prospective Study on the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Implementation of Clinical Pathways was designed in order to conduct a rigorous evaluation of clinical pathways in hospital treatment of acute heart failure. The primary objective of the trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of clinical pathways for hospital treatment of heart failure in Italian hospitals.</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>Two-arm, cluster-randomized trial. 14 community hospitals were randomized either to arm 1 (clinical pathway: appropriate use of practice guidelines and supplies of drugs and ancillary services, new organization and procedures, patient education, etc.) or to arm 2 (no intervention, usual care). 424 patients sample (212 in each group), 80% of power at the 5% significance level (two-sided). The primary outcome measure is in-hospital mortality. We will also analyze the impact of the clinical pathways comparing the length and the appropriateness of the stay, the rate of unscheduled readmissions, the customers' satisfaction and the costs treating the patients with the pathways and with the current practice along all the observation period. The quality of the care will be assessed by monitoring the use of diagnostic and therapeutic procedures during hospital stay and by measuring key quality indicators at discharge.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This paper examines the design of the evaluation of a complex intervention. Since clinical pathways are made up of various interconnecting parts we have chosen the cluster-randomized controlled trial because is widely accepted as the most reliable method of determining effectiveness when measuring cost-effectiveness in real practice.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov ID [NCT00519038]</p

Organizational readiness to change assessment (ORCA): Development of an instrument based on the Promoting Action on Research in Health Services (PARIHS) framework

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS, framework is a theoretical framework widely promoted as a guide to implement evidence-based clinical practices. However, it has as yet no pool of validated measurement instruments that operationalize the constructs defined in the framework. The present article introduces an Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment instrument (ORCA), organized according to the core elements and sub-elements of the PARIHS framework, and reports on initial validation.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted scale reliability and factor analyses on cross-sectional, secondary data from three quality improvement projects (n = 80) conducted in the Veterans Health Administration. In each project, identical 77-item ORCA instruments were administered to one or more staff from each facility involved in quality improvement projects. Items were organized into 19 subscales and three primary scales corresponding to the core elements of the PARIHS framework: (1) Strength and extent of evidence for the clinical practice changes represented by the QI program, assessed with four subscales, (2) Quality of the organizational context for the QI program, assessed with six subscales, and (3) Capacity for internal facilitation of the QI program, assessed with nine subscales.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Cronbach's alpha for scale reliability were 0.74, 0.85 and 0.95 for the evidence, context and facilitation scales, respectively. The evidence scale and its three constituent subscales failed to meet the conventional threshold of 0.80 for reliability, and three individual items were eliminated from evidence subscales following reliability testing. In exploratory factor analysis, three factors were retained. Seven of the nine facilitation subscales loaded onto the first factor; five of the six context subscales loaded onto the second factor; and the three evidence subscales loaded on the third factor. Two subscales failed to load significantly on any factor. One measured resources in general (from the context scale), and one clinical champion role (from the facilitation scale).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>We find general support for the reliability and factor structure of the ORCA. However, there was poor reliability among measures of evidence, and factor analysis results for measures of general resources and clinical champion role did not conform to the PARIHS framework. Additional validation is needed, including criterion validation.</p

How to promote, improve and test adherence to scientific evidence in clinical practice

BACKGROUND: Negative variation in the management of patients with the same clinical condition is frequent, and affects quality of care. Recent studies indicate that single interventions are not an effective solution. We aim to demonstrate that a multifaceted strategy can favor the introduction of research into practice, and to assess its long-term effects on a set of common medical conditions exhibiting significant negative variation at our institution. METHODS: The strategy, devised and agreed upon by a multidisciplinary group, was first applied to one relevant medical condition – cerebral ischemic stroke. To test its effectiveness a quasi-experimental study was conducted, comparing an intervention group with historical controls. After validation the strategy was extended to other pathologies, and its long-term effect measured using evidence-based quality indicators. Adherence to each indicator was determined prospectively on a six-month basis for a period of at least two consecutive years. Measures are expressed as proportions with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Validation findings demonstrated that the strategy improved compliance with scientific evidence: the percentage of patients who received a CT scan within 24 hours of hospital presentation rose from 56% to 75%, (χ(2 )= 7.43 p < 0.01); admissions to selected wards increased from 45% to 64%, (χ(2 )= 7.81 p < 0.01); the number of physical medicine visits within 24 hours of the request grew from 59% to 91% (χ(2 )= 14,40 p < 0.001). Over a four-year period the program was gradually applied to 14 medical conditions. Except for 3 cases, compliance with the pathway, i.e. number of eligible patients for whom data on the care process is collected, was above the minimum requirement of 75%. Indicator adherence generally exhibited a positive trend, though variability was observed both among different conditions and between different semesters for the same pathology. CONCLUSION: According to our experience, incorporation of research into practice can be favored by systematically applying a shared, multifaceted strategy, involving multidisciplinary teams supported by central coordination. Institutions should device a tailor-made approach, should train personnel on implementation strategies, and create cultural acceptance of change. Just like for experimental trials, human and economic resources should be allocated within health care services to allow the achievement of this objective

MUC1 Limits Helicobacter pylori Infection both by Steric Hindrance and by Acting as a Releasable Decoy

The bacterium Helicobacter pylori can cause peptic ulcer disease, gastric adenocarcinoma and MALT lymphoma. The cell-surface mucin MUC1 is a large glycoprotein which is highly expressed on the mucosal surface and limits the density of H. pylori in a murine infection model. We now demonstrate that by using the BabA and SabA adhesins, H. pylori bind MUC1 isolated from human gastric cells and MUC1 shed into gastric juice. Both H. pylori carrying these adhesins, and beads coated with MUC1 antibodies, induced shedding of MUC1 from MKN7 human gastric epithelial cells, and shed MUC1 was found bound to H. pylori. Shedding of MUC1 from non-infected cells was not mediated by the known MUC1 sheddases ADAM17 and MMP-14. However, knockdown of MMP-14 partially affected MUC1 release early in infection, whereas ADAM17 had no effect. Thus, it is likely that shedding is mediated both by proteases and by disassociation of the non-covalent interaction between the α- and β-subunits. H. pylori bound more readily to MUC1 depleted cells even when the bacteria lacked the BabA and SabA adhesins, showing that MUC1 inhibits attachment even when bacteria cannot bind to the mucin. Bacteria lacking both the BabA and SabA adhesins caused less apoptosis in MKN7 cells than wild-type bacteria, having a greater effect than deletion of the CagA pathogenicity gene. Deficiency of MUC1/Muc1 resulted in increased epithelial cell apoptosis, both in MKN7 cells in vitro, and in H. pylori infected mice. Thus, MUC1 protects the epithelium from non-MUC1 binding bacteria by inhibiting adhesion to the cell surface by steric hindrance, and from MUC1-binding bacteria by acting as a releasable decoy

Hospital-level associations with 30-day patient mortality after cardiac surgery: a tutorial on the application and interpretation of marginal and multilevel logistic regression

Background: Marginal and multilevel logistic regression methods can estimate associations between hospital-level factors and patient-level 30-day mortality outcomes after cardiac surgery. However, it is not widely understood how the interpretation of hospital-level effects differs between these methods. Methods. The Australasian Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ASCTS) registry provided data on 32,354 patients undergoing cardiac surgery in 18 hospitals from 2001 to 2009. The logistic regression methods related 30-day mortality after surgery to hospital characteristics with concurrent adjustment for patient characteristics. Results: Hospital-level mortality rates varied from 1.0% to 4.1% of patients. Ordinary, marginal and multilevel regression methods differed with regard to point estimates and conclusions on statistical significance for hospital-level risk factors; ordinary logistic regression giving inappropriately narrow confidence intervals. The median odds ratio, MOR, from the multilevel model was 1.2 whereas ORs for most patient-level characteristics were of greater magnitude suggesting that unexplained between-hospital variation was not as relevant as patient-level characteristics for understanding mortality rates. For hospital-level characteristics in the multilevel model, 80% interval ORs, IOR-80%, supplemented the usual ORs from the logistic regression. The IOR-80% was (0.8 to 1.8) for academic affiliation and (0.6 to 1.3) for the median annual number of cardiac surgery procedures. The width of these intervals reflected the unexplained variation between hospitals in mortality rates; the inclusion of one in each interval suggested an inability to add meaningfully to explaining variation in mortality rates. Conclusions: Marginal and multilevel models take different approaches to account for correlation between patients within hospitals and they lead to different interpretations for hospital-level odds ratios. © 2012 Sanagou et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd

Outcomes research in the development and evaluation of practice guidelines

BACKGROUND: Practice guidelines have been developed in response to the observation that variations exist in clinical medicine that are not related to variations in the clinical presentation and severity of the disease. Despite their widespread use, however, practice guideline evaluation lacks a rigorous scientific methodology to support its development and application. DISCUSSION: Firstly, we review the major epidemiological foundations of practice guideline development. Secondly, we propose a chronic disease epidemiological model in which practice patterns are viewed as the exposure and outcomes of interest such as quality or cost are viewed as the disease. Sources of selection, information, confounding and temporal trend bias are identified and discussed. SUMMARY: The proposed methodological framework for outcomes research to evaluate practice guidelines reflects the selection, information and confounding biases inherent in its observational nature which must be accounted for in both the design and the analysis phases of any outcomes research study