An assessment of composite measures of hospital performance and associated mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Analysis of individual hospital performance and outcome for the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR)
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online March, 2013
An assessment of composite measures of hospital performance and associated mortality for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Analysis of individual hospital performance and outcome for the National Institute for Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR)
To investigate whether a hospital-specific opportunity-based composite score (OBCS) was associated with mortality in 136,392 patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) using data from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) 2008–2009.
Methods and results:
For 199 hospitals a multidimensional hospital OBCS was calculated on the number of times that aspirin, thienopyridine, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi), statin, β-blocker, and referral for cardiac rehabilitation was given to individual patients, divided by the overall number of opportunities that hospitals had to give that care. OBCS and its six components were compared using funnel plots. Associations between OBCS performance and 30-day and 6-month all-cause mortality were quantified using mixed-effects regression analysis. Median hospital OBCS was 95.3% (range 75.8–100%). By OBCS, 24.1% of hospitals were below funnel plot 99.8% CI, compared to aspirin (11.1%), thienopyridine (15.1%), β-blockers (14.7%), ACEi (19.1%), statins (12.1%), and cardiac rehabilitation (17.6%) on discharge. Mortality (95% CI) decreased with increasing hospital OBCS quartile at 30 days [Q1, 2.25% (2.07–2.43%) vs. Q4, 1.40% (1.25–1.56%)] and 6 months [Q1, 7.93% (7.61–8.25%) vs. Q4, 5.53% (5.22–5.83%)]. Hospital OBCS quartile was inversely associated with adjusted 30-day and 6-month mortality [OR (95% CI), 0.87 (0.80–0.94) and 0.92 (0.88–0.96), respectively] and persisted after adjustment for coronary artery catheterization [0.89 (0.82–0.96) and 0.95 (0.91–0.98), respectively].
Conclusions:
Multidimensional hospital OBCS in AMI survivors are high, discriminate hospital performance more readily than single performance indicators, and significantly inversely predict early and longer-term mortality.
GaleCPCattleBAWoolstonA. Resolving inequalities in care? Reduced mortality in the elderly after acute coronary syndromes. The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project 2003–2010. Eur Heart J2012; 33: 630–639.
2.
FoxKAGoodmanSGKleinW. Management of acute coronary syndromes. Variations in practice and outcome; findings from the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Eur Heart J2002; 23: 1177–1189.
3.
FoxKAAndersonFAJrDabbousOH. Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Heart2007; 93: 177–182.
4.
WidimskyPWijnsWFajadetJ. Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction in Europe: description of the current situation in 30 countries. Eur Heart J2010; 31: 943–957.
5.
FonarowGCAlbertNMCurtisAB. Associations between outpatient heart failure process-of-care measures and mortality/clinical perspective. Circulation2011; 123: 1601–1610.
6.
BradleyEHHerrinJElbelB. Hospital quality for acute myocardial infarction: correlation among process measures and relationship with short-term mortality. JAMA2006; 296: 72–78.
7.
StaigerDODimickJBBaserO. Empirically derived composite measures of surgical performance. Med Care2009; 47: 226–233.
8.
AntmanEMAnbeDTArmstrongPW. ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction – executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol2004; 44: 671–719.
9.
WrightRSAndersonJLAdamsCD. 2011 ACCF/AHA focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol2011; 57: e215-e367.
10.
HammCWBassandJPAgewallS. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J2011; 32: 2999–3054.
11.
Van de WerfFBaxJBetriuA. ESC guidelines on management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with persistent ST-segment elevation. Rev Esp Cardiol2009; 62: 293, e1–47.
12.
Department of Health. The National Service Framework for coronary heart disease: modern standards and service models. London: DOH.
13.
MINAP Steering Group, National Institute Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR). Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP): how the NHS manages heart attacks. Tenth public report 2011. London: University College London, 2011.
14.
Ministere de la Sante. Public information system on hospitals. Ministere de la Sante. Available at: http://www.platines.santes.gouv.fr/ (consulted June 2012).
15.
KrumholzHMAndersonJLBachelderBL. ACC/AHA 2008 performance measures for adults with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Performance Measures for ST-Elevation and Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American Academy of Family Physicians and American College of Emergency Physicians endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Hospital Medicine. J Am Coll Cardiol2008; 52: 2046–2099.
16.
TuJVKhalidLDonovanLR. Indicators of quality of care for patients with acute myocardial infarction. CMAJ2008; 179: 909–915.
17.
PetersonEDDeLongERMasoudiFA. ACCF/AHA 2010 Position statement on composite measures for healthcare performance assessment: American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop a Position Statement on Composite Measures). J Am Coll Cardiol2010; 55: 1755–1766.
18.
WestonCFM. Performance indicators in acute myocardial infarction: a proposal for the future assessment of good quality care. Heart2008; 94: 1397–1401.
19.
National Institute Cardiovascular Outcomes Research (NICOR). The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP). London: University College London2011.
20.
BirkheadJWalkerL. National audit of myocardial infarction (MINAP): a project in evolution. Hosp Med2004; 65: 452–453.
21.
BirkheadJS. Responding to the requirements of the national service framework for coronary disease: a core data set for myocardial infarction. Heart2000; 84: 116–117.
22.
HerrettESmeethLWalkerL. The Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP). Heart2010; 96: 1264–1267.
23.
WestRMCattleBABouyssieM. Impact of hospital proportion and volume on primary percutaneous coronary intervention performance in England and Wales. Eur Heart J2011; 32: 706–711.
24.
RickardsACunninghamD. From quantity to quality: the central cardiac audit database project. Heart1999; 82: II18–II22.
25.
BonowROBennettSCaseyDE. ACC/AHA clinical performance measures for adults with chronic heart failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop Heart Failure Clinical Performance Measures) endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol2005; 46: 1144–1178.
26.
SpertusJAEagleKAKrumholzHM. American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association methodology for the selection and creation of performance measures for quantifying the quality of cardiovascular care. J Am Coll Cardiol2005; 45: 1147–1156.
27.
Royal College of Physicians. Unstable angina and NSTEMI: the early management of unstable angina and non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: clinical guideline 94. London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence 2010.
28.
GaleCPRobertsAPBatinPD. Funnel plots, performance variation and the Myocardial Infarction National Audit Project 2003–2004. BMC Cardiovasc Disord2006; 6: 34.
29.
GaleCPCattleBAMooreJ. Impact of missing data on standardised mortality ratios for acute myocardial infarction: evidence from the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP) 2004–7. Heart2011; 97: 1926–1931.
30.
FoxKAADabbousOHGoldbergRJ. Prediction of risk of death and myocardial infarction in the six months after presentation with acute coronary syndrome: prospective multinational observational study (GRACE). BMJ2006; 333: 1091–1094.
31.
EapenZJFonarowGCDaiD. Comparison of composite measure methodologies for rewarding quality of care. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes2011; 4: 610–618.
32.
NolanTBerwickDM. All-or-none measurement raises the bar on performance. JAMA2006; 295: 1168–1170.
33.
PetersonEDRoeMTMulgundJ. Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA2006; 295: 1912–1920.
34.
GrangerCBStegPGPetersonE. Medication performance measures and mortality following acute coronary syndromes. Am J Med2005; 118: 858–865.
35.
SchieleFMeneveauNSerondeMF. Compliance with guidelines and 1-year mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction: a prospective study. Eur Heart J2005; 26: 873–880.
36.
WernerRMBradlowET. Relationship between Medicare’s hospital compare performance measures and mortality rates. JAMA2006; 296: 2694–2702.
37.
MandelzweigLBattlerABoykoV. The second Euro Heart Survey on acute coronary syndromes: characteristics, treatment, and outcome of patients with ACS in Europe and the Mediterranean Basin in 2004. Eur Heart J2006; 27: 2285–2293.
38.
SchieleFHochadelMTubaroM. Reperfusion strategy in Europe: temporal trends in performance measures for reperfusion therapy in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J2010; 31: 2614–2624.
39.
SpiegelhalterDJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med2005; 24: 1185–1202.
40.
JacobsRGoddardMSmithPC. How robust are hospital ranks based on composite performance measures?Med Care2005; 43: 1177–1184.
