The association between processes, structures and outcomes of secondary prevention care among VA ischemic heart disease patients

BACKGROUND: Hyperlipidemia and hypertension are well-established risk factors for recurrent cardiovascular events among patients with ischemic heart disease (IHD). Despite national recommendations, concordance with guidelines for LDL cholesterol and blood pressure remains inadequate. The objectives of this study were to 1) determine concordance rates with LDL cholesterol and BP recommendations; and 2) identify patient factors, processes and structures of care associated with guideline concordance among VA IHD patients. METHODS: This was a cross sectional study of veterans with IHD from 8 VA hospitals. Outcomes were concordance with LDL guideline recommendations (LDL<100 mg/dl), and BP recommendations (<140/90 mm Hg). Cumulative logit and hierarchical logistic regression analyses were performed to identify patient factors, processes, and structures of care independently associated with guideline concordance. RESULTS: Of 14,114 veterans with IHD, 55.7% had hypertension, 71.5% had hyperlipidemia, and 41.6% had both conditions. Guideline concordance for LDL and BP were 38.9% and 53.4%, respectively. However, only 21.9% of the patients achieved both LDL <100 mg/dl and BP <140/90 mm Hg. In multivariable analyses, patient factors including older age and the presence of vascular disease were associated with worse guideline concordance. In contrast, diabetes was associated with better guideline concordance. Several process of care variables, including higher number of outpatient visits, higher number of prescribed medications, and a recent cardiac hospitalization were associated with better guideline concordance. Among structures of care, having on-site cardiology was associated with a trend towards better guideline concordance. CONCLUSION: Guideline concordance with secondary prevention measures among IHD patients remains suboptimal. It is hoped that the findings of this study can serve as an impetus for quality improvement efforts to improve upon secondary prevention measures and reduce the morbidity and mortality of patients with known IHD

Assessment of attitudes towards future implementation of the “Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System” (SURPAS) tool: a pilot survey among patients, surgeons, and hospital administrators

Abstract Background Risk assessment in surgery is essential to guide treatment decisions but is highly variable in practice. Providing formal preoperative risk assessment to surgical teams and patients may optimize understanding of risk. Implementation of the Surgical Risk Preoperative Assessment System (SURPAS), an innovative real time, universal, preoperative tool providing individualized risk assessment, may enhance informed consent and reduce adverse outcomes. To ensure optimal development and implementation of SURPAS we performed an in-depth pre-implementation evaluation of SURPAS at an academic tertiary referral center in Colorado. Methods Four focus groups with 24 patients, three focus groups with 29 surgical providers and clinic administrators, and five individual interviews with administrative officials were conducted to elicit their perspectives about the development and implementation of SURPAS. Qualitative data collection and analyses, utilizing a Matrix Analysis approach were used to explore insights regarding SURPAS. Results Participants were positive about SURPAS and provided suggestions to improve and address concerns regarding it. For healthcare personnel three major themes emerged: 1) The SURPAS tool - Important work especially for high risk patients, yet not a substitute for clinical judgment; 2) Benefits of SURPAS to the risk assessment process - Improves the processes, enhances patients’ participation in shared decision-making process, and creates a permanent record; and 3) Facilitators and barriers of implementation of SURPAS - Easy to incorporate into clinical practice in spite of surgical providers’ resistance to adoption of new technology. For patients three major themes emerged: 1) Past experience of preoperative risk assessment discussions – Patients were not made aware of possible complications that occurred; 2) The SURPAS tool - All patients liked SURPAS and believed having printed material would be useful to guide discussions and facilitate remembering conversations with the providers; and 3) Potential concerns with having risk assessment information – Patients were mixed in deciding to have an operation with high risks. Conclusions Systematically capturing data from the beginning of the implementation process from key stakeholders (patients, surgical providers, clinical staff, and administrators) that includes adaptations to the tool and implementation process will help to inform pragmatic approaches for implementing the SURPAS tool in various settings, scaling-up, and sustaining it