Pitfalls in assessing the quality of care for patients with cardiovascular disease

Thomas G. DiSalvo, Sharon Lise T. Normand, Paul Hauptman, Edward Guadagnoli, R. Heather Palmer, Barbara J. McNeil

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

18 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

PURPOSE: There are no clinical performance measures for cardiovascular diseases that span the continuum of hospital through postdischarge ambulatory care. We tested the feasibility of developing and implementing such measures for patients with acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or hypertension. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After reviewing practice guidelines and the medical literature, we developed potential measures related to therapy, diagnostic evaluation, and communication. We tested the feasibility of implementing the selected measures for 518 patients with myocardial infarction, 396 with heart failure, and 601 with hypertension who were enrolled in four major U.S. managed care plans at six geographic sites, using data from administrative claims, medical records, and patient surveys. RESULTS: Difficulties in obtaining timely data and small numbers of cases adversely affected measurement. We encountered 6- to 12-month delays, disagreement between principal discharge diagnosis as coded in administrative and records data (for 9% of myocardial infarction and 21% of heart failure patients), missing medical records (20% for both myocardial infarction and heart failure patients), and problems in identifying physicians accountable for care. Low rates of performing key diagnostic tests (e.g., ejection fraction) excluded many cases from measures of appropriate therapy that were conditional on test results. Patient survey response rates were low. CONCLUSIONS: Constructing meaningful clinical performance measures is straightforward, but implementing them on a large scale will require improved data systems. Lack of standardized data captured at the point of clinical care and low rates of eligibility for key measures hamper measurement of quality of care.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)297-303
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican Journal of Medicine
Volume111
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2 2001

Fingerprint

Quality of Health Care
Cardiovascular Diseases
Heart Failure
Myocardial Infarction
Medical Records
Point-of-Care Systems
Hypertension
Managed Care Programs
Ambulatory Care
Practice Guidelines
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Information Systems
Communication
Physicians
Therapeutics

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Pitfalls in assessing the quality of care for patients with cardiovascular disease. / DiSalvo, Thomas G.; Normand, Sharon Lise T.; Hauptman, Paul; Guadagnoli, Edward; Palmer, R. Heather; McNeil, Barbara J.

In: American Journal of Medicine, Vol. 111, No. 4, 02.10.2001, p. 297-303.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

DiSalvo, Thomas G. ; Normand, Sharon Lise T. ; Hauptman, Paul ; Guadagnoli, Edward ; Palmer, R. Heather ; McNeil, Barbara J. / Pitfalls in assessing the quality of care for patients with cardiovascular disease. In: American Journal of Medicine. 2001 ; Vol. 111, No. 4. pp. 297-303.
@article{4f6b064dae194ccfa4b280a215993f8a,
title = "Pitfalls in assessing the quality of care for patients with cardiovascular disease",
abstract = "PURPOSE: There are no clinical performance measures for cardiovascular diseases that span the continuum of hospital through postdischarge ambulatory care. We tested the feasibility of developing and implementing such measures for patients with acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or hypertension. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After reviewing practice guidelines and the medical literature, we developed potential measures related to therapy, diagnostic evaluation, and communication. We tested the feasibility of implementing the selected measures for 518 patients with myocardial infarction, 396 with heart failure, and 601 with hypertension who were enrolled in four major U.S. managed care plans at six geographic sites, using data from administrative claims, medical records, and patient surveys. RESULTS: Difficulties in obtaining timely data and small numbers of cases adversely affected measurement. We encountered 6- to 12-month delays, disagreement between principal discharge diagnosis as coded in administrative and records data (for 9{\%} of myocardial infarction and 21{\%} of heart failure patients), missing medical records (20{\%} for both myocardial infarction and heart failure patients), and problems in identifying physicians accountable for care. Low rates of performing key diagnostic tests (e.g., ejection fraction) excluded many cases from measures of appropriate therapy that were conditional on test results. Patient survey response rates were low. CONCLUSIONS: Constructing meaningful clinical performance measures is straightforward, but implementing them on a large scale will require improved data systems. Lack of standardized data captured at the point of clinical care and low rates of eligibility for key measures hamper measurement of quality of care.",
author = "DiSalvo, {Thomas G.} and Normand, {Sharon Lise T.} and Paul Hauptman and Edward Guadagnoli and Palmer, {R. Heather} and McNeil, {Barbara J.}",
year = "2001",
month = "10",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00842-7",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "111",
pages = "297--303",
journal = "American Journal of Medicine",
issn = "0002-9343",
publisher = "Elsevier Inc.",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Pitfalls in assessing the quality of care for patients with cardiovascular disease

AU - DiSalvo, Thomas G.

AU - Normand, Sharon Lise T.

AU - Hauptman, Paul

AU - Guadagnoli, Edward

AU - Palmer, R. Heather

AU - McNeil, Barbara J.

PY - 2001/10/2

Y1 - 2001/10/2

N2 - PURPOSE: There are no clinical performance measures for cardiovascular diseases that span the continuum of hospital through postdischarge ambulatory care. We tested the feasibility of developing and implementing such measures for patients with acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or hypertension. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After reviewing practice guidelines and the medical literature, we developed potential measures related to therapy, diagnostic evaluation, and communication. We tested the feasibility of implementing the selected measures for 518 patients with myocardial infarction, 396 with heart failure, and 601 with hypertension who were enrolled in four major U.S. managed care plans at six geographic sites, using data from administrative claims, medical records, and patient surveys. RESULTS: Difficulties in obtaining timely data and small numbers of cases adversely affected measurement. We encountered 6- to 12-month delays, disagreement between principal discharge diagnosis as coded in administrative and records data (for 9% of myocardial infarction and 21% of heart failure patients), missing medical records (20% for both myocardial infarction and heart failure patients), and problems in identifying physicians accountable for care. Low rates of performing key diagnostic tests (e.g., ejection fraction) excluded many cases from measures of appropriate therapy that were conditional on test results. Patient survey response rates were low. CONCLUSIONS: Constructing meaningful clinical performance measures is straightforward, but implementing them on a large scale will require improved data systems. Lack of standardized data captured at the point of clinical care and low rates of eligibility for key measures hamper measurement of quality of care.

AB - PURPOSE: There are no clinical performance measures for cardiovascular diseases that span the continuum of hospital through postdischarge ambulatory care. We tested the feasibility of developing and implementing such measures for patients with acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, or hypertension. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: After reviewing practice guidelines and the medical literature, we developed potential measures related to therapy, diagnostic evaluation, and communication. We tested the feasibility of implementing the selected measures for 518 patients with myocardial infarction, 396 with heart failure, and 601 with hypertension who were enrolled in four major U.S. managed care plans at six geographic sites, using data from administrative claims, medical records, and patient surveys. RESULTS: Difficulties in obtaining timely data and small numbers of cases adversely affected measurement. We encountered 6- to 12-month delays, disagreement between principal discharge diagnosis as coded in administrative and records data (for 9% of myocardial infarction and 21% of heart failure patients), missing medical records (20% for both myocardial infarction and heart failure patients), and problems in identifying physicians accountable for care. Low rates of performing key diagnostic tests (e.g., ejection fraction) excluded many cases from measures of appropriate therapy that were conditional on test results. Patient survey response rates were low. CONCLUSIONS: Constructing meaningful clinical performance measures is straightforward, but implementing them on a large scale will require improved data systems. Lack of standardized data captured at the point of clinical care and low rates of eligibility for key measures hamper measurement of quality of care.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0034827474&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0034827474&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00842-7

DO - 10.1016/S0002-9343(01)00842-7

M3 - Article

VL - 111

SP - 297

EP - 303

JO - American Journal of Medicine

JF - American Journal of Medicine

SN - 0002-9343

IS - 4

ER -