共 27 条
Effectiveness of Public Report Cards for Improving the Quality of Cardiac Care The EFFECT Study: A Randomized Trial
被引:194
作者:
Tu, Jack V.
[1
,2
,3
,4
,5
]
Donovan, Linda R.
[1
]
Lee, Douglas S.
[1
,3
,6
]
Wang, Julie T.
[1
]
Austin, Peter C.
[1
,4
,5
]
Alter, David A.
[1
,3
,7
,8
]
Ko, Dennis T.
[1
,2
,3
]
机构:
[1] Inst Clin Evaluat Sci, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
[2] Sunnybrook Hlth Sci Ctr, Schulich Heart Ctr, Div Cardiol, Toronto, ON M4N 3M5, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Dept Med, Toronto, ON, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Dept Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, Canada
[5] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] Univ Hlth Network, Div Cardiol, Toronto, ON, Canada
[7] St Michaels Hosp, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Inst, Div Cardiol, Toronto, ON M5B 1W8, Canada
[8] Toronto Rehabil Inst, Toronto, ON, Canada
来源:
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
|
2009年
/
302卷
/
21期
基金:
加拿大健康研究院;
关键词:
ACUTE MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION;
ACUTE CORONARY EVENTS;
OF-CARE;
HEART-FAILURE;
INFORMED-CONSENT;
PERFORMANCE DATA;
GLOBAL REGISTRY;
INDICATORS;
HOSPITALS;
MORTALITY;
D O I:
10.1001/jama.2009.1731
中图分类号:
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号:
1002 ;
100201 ;
摘要:
Context Publicly released report cards on hospital performance are increasingly common, but whether they are an effective method for improving quality of care remains uncertain. Objective To evaluate whether the public release of data on cardiac quality indicators effectively stimulates hospitals to undertake quality improvement activities that improve health care processes and patient outcomes. Design, Setting, and Patients Population-based cluster randomized trial (Enhanced Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment [EFFECT]) of 86 hospital corporations in Ontario, Canada, with patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or congestive heart failure (CHF). Intervention Participating hospital corporations were randomized to early (January 2004) or delayed (September 2005) feedback of a public report card on their baseline performance (between April 1999 and March 2001) on a set of 12 process-of-care indicators for AMI and 6 for CHF. Follow-up performance data (between April 2004 and March 2005) also were collected. Main Outcome Measures The coprimary outcomes were composite AMI and CHF indicators based on 12 AMI and 6 CHF process-of-care indicators. Secondary outcomes were the individual process-of-care indicators, a hospital report card impact survey, and all-cause AMI and CHF mortality. Results The publication of the early feedback hospital report card did not result in a significant systemwide improvement in the early feedback group in either the composite AMI process-of-care indicator (absolute change, 1.5%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.2% to 5.1%; P = .43) or the composite CHF process-of-care indicator (absolute change, 0.6%; 95% CI, -4.5% to 5.7%; P = .81). During the follow-up period, the mean 30-day AMI mortality rates were 2.5% lower (95% CI, 0.1% to 4.9%; P = .045) in the early feedback group compared with the delayed feedback group. The hospital mortality rates for CHF were not significantly different. Conclusion Public release of hospital-specific quality indicators did not significantly improve composite process-of-care indicators for AMI or CHF. Trial Registration clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00187460 JAMA. 2009;302(21):2330-2337
引用
收藏
页码:2330 / 2337
页数:8
相关论文