Funnel plots, performance variation and the Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project 2003–2004

BACKGROUND: Clinical governance requires health care professionals to improve standards of care and has resulted in comparison of clinical performance data. The Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project (a UK cardiology dataset) tabulates its performance. However funnel plots are the display method of choice for institutional comparison. We aimed to demonstrate that funnel plots may be derived from MINAP data and allow more meaningful interpretation of data. METHODS: We examined the attainment of National Service Framework standards for all hospitals (n = 230) and all patients (n = 99,133) in the MINAP database between 1(st )April 2003 and 31(st )March 2004. We generated funnel plots (with control limits at 3 sigma) of Door to Needle and Call to Needle thrombolysis times, and the use of aspirin, beta-blockers and statins post myocardial infarction. RESULTS: Only 87,427 patients fulfilled criteria for analysis of the use of secondary prevention drugs and 15,111 patients for analysis by Door to Needle and Call to Needle times (163 hospitals achieved the standards for Door to Needle times and 215 were within or above their control limits). One hundred and sixteen hospitals fell outside the 'within 25%' and 'more than 25%' standards for Call to Needle times, but 28 were below the lower control limits. Sixteen hospitals failed to reach the standards for aspirin usage post AMI and 24 remained below the lower control limits. Thirty hospitals were below the lower CL for beta-blocker usage and 49 outside the standard. Statin use was comparable. CONCLUSION: Funnel plots may be applied to a complex dataset and allow visual comparison of data derived from multiple health-care units. Variation is readily identified permitting units to appraise their practices so that effective quality improvement may take place

Association of frontal QRS-T angle--age risk score on admission electrocardiogram with mortality in patients admitted with an acute coronary syndrome

Risk assessment is central to the management of acute coronary syndromes. Often, however, assessment is not complete until the troponin concentration is available. Using 2 multicenter prospective observational studies (Evaluation of Methods and Management of Acute Coronary Events [EMMACE] 2, test cohort, 1,843 patients; and EMMACE-1, validation cohort, 550 patients) of unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes, a point-of-admission risk stratification tool using frontal QRS-T angle derived from automated measurements and age for the prediction of 30-day and 2-year mortality was evaluated. Two-year mortality was lowest in patients with frontal QRS-T angles &lt;38° and highest in patients with frontal QRS-T angles &gt;104° (44.7% vs 14.8%, p &lt;0.001). Increasing frontal QRS-T angle-age risk (FAAR) scores were associated with increasing 30-day and 2-year mortality (for 2-year mortality, score 0 = 3.7%, score 4 = 57%; p &lt;0.001). The FAAR score was a good discriminator of mortality (C statistics 0.74 [95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.78] at 30 days and 0.77 [95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.79] at 2 years), maintained its performance in the EMMACE-1 cohort at 30 days (C statistics 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.71 to 0.8] at 30 days and 0.79 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 0.83] at 2 years), in men and women, in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, and compared favorably with the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) score. The integrated discrimination improvement (age to FAAR score at 30 days and at 2 years in EMMACE-1 and EMMACE-2) was p &lt;0.001. In conclusion, the FAAR score is a point-of-admission risk tool that predicts 30-day and 2-year mortality from 2 variables across a spectrum of patients with acute coronary syndromes. It does not require the results of biomarker assays or rely on the subjective interpretation of electrocardiograms.</p