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.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methods to derive composite indicators used for quality and safety measurement and monitoring in healthcare: a scoping review.Frontiers in health services · 2026Pooled it
- Composite measures of quality of health care: Evidence mapping of methodology and reporting.PloS one · 2022Article
- Development of a percutaneous coronary intervention patient level composite measure for a clinical quality registry.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Why report outcomes when process measures will suffice?European heart journal. Quality of care & clinical outcomes · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
28927185What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.