Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28927185›Full record

ArticleEuropean heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes2017

The contribution of the composite of clinical process indicators as a measure of hospital performance in the management of acute coronary syndromes-insights from the CONCORDANCE registry.

Bernadette Aliprandi-Costa, James Sockler, Leonard Kritharides, Lucy Morgan, Lan-Chi Snell, Janice Gullick, David Brieger, Isuru Ranasinghe

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Why report outcomes when process measures will suffice?European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Bernadette Aliprandi-CostaThe University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
James SocklerDatapharm Australia, 56 Thompson St, Drummoyne, NSW 2047, Australia.
Leonard KritharidesCardiology Department, Concord Hospital, Hospital Rd, Concord, NSW 2019, Australia.
Lucy MorganConcord Clinical School, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
Lan-Chi SnellUTS Business School, 14-28 Ultimo Rd, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
Janice GullickSydney Nursing School, The University of Sydney, Mallett Street M02, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia.
David BriegerCardiology Department, Concord Hospital, Hospital Rd, Concord, NSW 2019, Australia.
Isuru RanasingheDepartment of Cardiology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, 28 Woodville Rd, Woodville South, SA 5011, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aims: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is a costly condition for health service provision yet variation in the delivery of care between hospitals persists. A composite measure of adherence with evidence-based clinical-process indicators (CPIs) could better inform hospital performance reporting and clinical outcomes in the management of ACS. Methods: Data on 7444 ACS patients from 39 Australian hospitals were used to derive a hospital-specific composite quality score by calculating mean adherence to 14 evidence-based CPIs. Using the generalized estimating equation to account for clustering of patients within hospitals and the GRACE risk score to adjust for differences in presenting risk, we evaluated associations between the hospital-specific composite quality score, in-hospital major adverse events, in-hospital mortality and mortality and readmission for ACS at 6 months. Results: Hospitals had a mean adherence of 68.3% (SD 21.7) with the composite quality score. There was significant variation between hospital adherence tertile 1 (79%) and tertile 3 (56%), P < 0.0001. With risk adjustment, there was an association between hospitals with a higher composite quality score and reduced in-hospital adverse events (OR: 0.85, CI: 0.71-0.99) and survival at hospital discharge (OR: 0.47; 95% CI: 0.28-0.77). There was trending improvement in survival at 6 months (OR 0.48; CI: 0.20-1.16) and fewer readmissions to hospital for ACS at 6 months (OR 0.79; CI 0.60-1.05). Conclusion: The association between the quality composite score and reduced in-hospital events and survival at hospital discharge supports the utility of reporting CPIs in routine hospital performance reporting on the management of ACS. Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registration (ANZCTR): CONCORDANCE Registry ACTRN12614000887673.

Indexed as

Disease ManagementGuideline AdherenceRegistriesRisk AssessmentAcute Coronary SyndromeAgedAustraliaFemaleHospital MortalityHospitalsHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CareRisk FactorsAcute coronary syndromeAdherence with evidence based careClinical process indicatorsQuality composite score

Identifiers

PMID28927185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.