Variations in quality of care for heart failure.

BACKGROUND: The objective of our study was to assess hospital-to-hospital variations for the management and treatment of heart failure (HF) patients. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study among randomly selected patients with ICD-10 (International Classification of Disease, 10th revision) HF hospitalised in three Swiss university hospitals in 1999. Demographic characteristics, risk factors, symptoms and findings at admission and discharge medications were abstracted. The main outcome measure was the percentage of patients receiving appropriate management and treatment as defined by quality of care indicators derived from evidence-based guidelines. Quality indicators were considered only when they could be applied (no contra-indications). RESULTS: Among 1153 eligible patients with HF the mean age (SD) was 75.3 (12.7), 54.3% were male. Among potential candidates for specific interventions left ventricular function (LVF) was determined in 68.5% of patients; 53.8% received target dose of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI), 86.0% any dose of angiotensin receptor blockers; 21.9% b-blockers, and 62.1% anticoagulants at discharge. Compared to hospital B (reference), the adjusted odds ratios (OR) (95% CI) for LVF not determined were 3.82 (2.50 to 5.85) in hospital A and 3.25 (1.78 to 5.93) in hospital C. The adjusted OR (95% CI) for not receiving target dose ACEI was 1.76 (0.95 to 3.26) for hospital A and 3.20 (1.34 to 7.65) for hospital C compared to hospital B. CONCLUSIONS: Apparently, important hospital-to-hospital variations in the quality of care given to patients with HF could have existed between three academic medical centers

Quality of health care surveillance systems: review and implementation in the Swiss setting.

Quality of health care has been a subject of attention for many years in the USA and in Europe. Since the introduction of the new federal law on insurance in 1996 it has evolved to a progressively more important issue within the Swiss health care system. In this review, some theoretical concepts of quality of health care, variations, and surveillance systems are explored. Examples of quality of health care surveillance systems that have been developed successfully in the USA, in Canada, in Australia, and in Europe are discussed. They all demonstrate the interest in creating a large range of quality indicators in the surveillance system and in evaluating hospital performance using a benchmark approach. Currently, the measurement of quality with appropriate indicators is a subject of intense debate between the Swiss Hospitals Association (H+) and the Swiss Health Insurance Consortium (Santésuisse). Examples of existing surveillance systems in Switzerland are the Outcome Verein in Zurich and the quality of care program of the Canton of Valais. The FoQual association has also contributed to the debate by reviewing six indicators, which could be used nationally for a healthcare surveillance system. In this debate it is important to stress that ideal quality indicators intended for use as measures of quality in Swiss hospitals need to be both appropriate and valid. Only indicators that fulfil these conditions should be integrated in a Swiss health care surveillance system. Priority needs to be given to quality indicators and methods with the highest level of evidence and with a solid scientific basis

Variations in the quality of care of patients with acute myocardial infarction among Swiss university hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to assess hospital variations in the quality of care delivered to acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients among three Swiss academic medical centres. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Three Swiss university hospitals. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: We selected 1129 eligible patients discharged from these hospitals from 1 January to 31 December 1999, with a primary or secondary diagnosis code [International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10)] of AMI. We abstracted medical records for information on demographic characteristics, risk factors, symptoms, and findings at admission. We also recorded the main ECG and laboratory findings, as well as hospital and discharge management and treatment. We excluded patients transferred to another hospital and who did not meet the clinical definition of AMI. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage of patients receiving appropriate intervention as defined by six quality of care indicators derived from clinical practical guidelines. RESULTS: Among 577 eligible patients with AMI in this study, the mean (SD) age was 68.2 (13.9), and 65% were male. In the assessment of the quality indicators we excluded patients who were not eligible for the procedure. Among cohorts of 'ideal candidates' for specific interventions, 64% in hospital A and 73% in hospital C had reperfusion within 12 hours either with thrombolytics or percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (P = 0.367). Further, in hospitals A, B, and C, respectively 97, 94, and 84% were prescribed aspirin during the initial hospitalization (P = 0.0002), and respectively 68, 91, and 75% received angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors at discharge in the case of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Our results showed important hospital-to-hospital variations in the quality of care provided to patients with AMI between these three university hospitals

Mode of detection and breast cancer mortality by follow-up time and tumor characteristics among screened women in Cancer Prevention Study-II

Purpose: In a screened population, breast cancer-specific mortality is lower for screen-detected versus symptom-detected breast cancers; however, it is unclear whether this association varies by follow-up time and/or tumor characteristics. To further understand the prognostic utility of mode of detection, we examined its association with breast cancer-specific mortality, overall and by follow-up time, estrogen receptor status, tumor size, and grade. Methods: In the Cancer Prevention Study-II Nutrition Cohort, 3975 routinely screened women were diagnosed with invasive breast cancer (1992–2015). Among 2686 screen-detected and 1289 symptom-detected breast cancers, 206 and 209 breast cancer deaths, respectively, occurred up to 24 years post diagnosis. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated from Cox proportional hazard regression models. Results: Controlling for prognostic factors, symptom detection was associated with higher risk of breast cancer-specific death up to 5 years after diagnosis (HR≤5years = 1.88, 95% CI 1.21–2.91) this association was attenuated in subsequent follow-up (HR>5years = 1.26, 95% CI 0.98–1.63). Within tumor characteristic strata, there was a 1.3–2.7-fold higher risk of breast cancer death associated with symptom-detected cancers ≤ 5 years of follow-up, although associations were only significant for women with tumors < 2 cm (HR≤5years = 2.42, 95% CI 1.19–4.93) and for women with grade 1 or 2 tumors (HR≤5years = 2.72, 95% CI 1.33–5.57). In subsequent follow-up, associations were closer to the null. Conclusions: Screen detection is a powerful prognostic factor for short-term survival. Among women who survived at least 5 years after breast cancer diagnosis, other clinical factors may be more predictive of breast cancer survival

Processes and outcomes for acute myocardial infarction patients

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to determine whether process quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) one associated with outcome indicators (hospital mortality and early readmission). DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A retrospective cohort study was conducted among patients discharged from three Swiss university hospitals with a primary or secondary International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision (ICD-10) AMI code in 1999. A total of 1,129 patients' records were abstructed. Demographic characteristics and risk factors at admission were recorded. The main ECG and laboratory findings were further abstracted as well as hospital and discharge management and treatment. The main outcome measure was process quality indicators derived from evidence-based guidelines, and hospital mortality and early readmissions. FINDINGS: After exclusions, 577 patients with AMI were eligible for this study. The mean (SD) age was 68.2 (13.9). In the assessment of quality indicators patients with potential contra-indications were excluded. Among cohorts of "ideal candidates" for specific interventions, aspirin was not prescribed within 24 hours after admission in 33 (6.2 percent) patients. Among those, 17 (51.5 percent) died (p<0.0001). The adjusted OR for no aspirin after admission was 3.61 (95 percent CI 1.11-11.77) for hospital mortality. Further, 78 (19.5 percent) patients did not receive ß-blockers at discharge. Among them nine (11.5 percent) were readmitted (p=0.133). The adjusted OR for no ß-blockers at discharge was 2.15 (95 percent CI 0.86-5.41) for readmissions. Among patients with AMI, not prescribing aspirin within 24 hours after admission was associated with hospital mortality. However, process indicators derived from evidence-based guidelines were not related to early readmission in this study. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The paper stresses the importance of clinicians confronting their decisions with recommendations of evidence-based guidelines for the management and treatment of AMI patients