Association Between Hospital Recognition for Resuscitation Guideline Adherence and Rates of Survival for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

Rohan Khera, Yuanyuan Tang, Mark Steven Link, Harlan M. Krumholz, Saket Girotra, Paul S. Chan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background Hospitals participating in the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry receive an award for high rates of adherence to quality metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to evaluate whether awards based on these quality metrics can be considered a proxy for performance on cardiac arrest survival. Methods and Results Among 195 hospitals with continuous participation in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation between 2012 and 2015, we identified 78 that received an award (Gold or Silver) for ≥85% compliance for all 4 metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest-time to chest compressions, ≤1 minute; time to defibrillation, ≤2 minutes; device confirmation of endotracheal tube placement; and a monitored/witnessed arrest-for at least 12 consecutive months during 2014 to 2015. Award hospitals had higher cardiac arrest volumes than nonaward hospitals but otherwise had similar site characteristics. During 2014 to 2015, award hospitals had higher rates of return of spontaneous circulation for in-hospital cardiac arrest than nonaward hospitals (median [interquartile range], 71% [64%-77%] versus 66% [59%-74%]; Spearman ρ, 0.19; P=0.009). However, rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge at award hospitals (median, 25% [interquartile range, 22%-30%]) were similar to nonaward hospitals (median, 24% [interquartile range, 12%-27%]; Spearman ρ, 0.13; P=0.06). Among hospitals in the best tertile for survival to discharge in 2014 to 2015, 55.4% (36/65) did not receive an award, with poor discrimination of high-performing hospitals by award status (C statistic, 0.53). Similarly, there was only a weak association between hospitals' award status in 2014 to 2015 and their rates of survival to discharge in the preceding 2-year period (Spearman ρ, 0.16; P=0.03). Conclusions The current recognition mechanism within a national registry for in-hospital cardiac arrest captures hospital performance on return of spontaneous circulation but is not well correlated with survival to discharge. This suggests that current awards for resuscitation quality may not adequately capture hospital performance on overall survival-the outcome of greatest interest to patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e005429
JournalCirculation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes
Volume12
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Mar 1 2019

Fingerprint

Guideline Adherence
Heart Arrest
Resuscitation
Survival
Registries
Guidelines
Cardiac Volume

Keywords

  • heart arrest
  • outcome and process assessment (health care)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Cite this

Association Between Hospital Recognition for Resuscitation Guideline Adherence and Rates of Survival for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest. / Khera, Rohan; Tang, Yuanyuan; Link, Mark Steven; Krumholz, Harlan M.; Girotra, Saket; Chan, Paul S.

In: Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes, Vol. 12, No. 3, 01.03.2019, p. e005429.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{119971c048144405b4b36cc991deaed9,
title = "Association Between Hospital Recognition for Resuscitation Guideline Adherence and Rates of Survival for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest",
abstract = "Background Hospitals participating in the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry receive an award for high rates of adherence to quality metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to evaluate whether awards based on these quality metrics can be considered a proxy for performance on cardiac arrest survival. Methods and Results Among 195 hospitals with continuous participation in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation between 2012 and 2015, we identified 78 that received an award (Gold or Silver) for ≥85{\%} compliance for all 4 metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest-time to chest compressions, ≤1 minute; time to defibrillation, ≤2 minutes; device confirmation of endotracheal tube placement; and a monitored/witnessed arrest-for at least 12 consecutive months during 2014 to 2015. Award hospitals had higher cardiac arrest volumes than nonaward hospitals but otherwise had similar site characteristics. During 2014 to 2015, award hospitals had higher rates of return of spontaneous circulation for in-hospital cardiac arrest than nonaward hospitals (median [interquartile range], 71{\%} [64{\%}-77{\%}] versus 66{\%} [59{\%}-74{\%}]; Spearman ρ, 0.19; P=0.009). However, rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge at award hospitals (median, 25{\%} [interquartile range, 22{\%}-30{\%}]) were similar to nonaward hospitals (median, 24{\%} [interquartile range, 12{\%}-27{\%}]; Spearman ρ, 0.13; P=0.06). Among hospitals in the best tertile for survival to discharge in 2014 to 2015, 55.4{\%} (36/65) did not receive an award, with poor discrimination of high-performing hospitals by award status (C statistic, 0.53). Similarly, there was only a weak association between hospitals' award status in 2014 to 2015 and their rates of survival to discharge in the preceding 2-year period (Spearman ρ, 0.16; P=0.03). Conclusions The current recognition mechanism within a national registry for in-hospital cardiac arrest captures hospital performance on return of spontaneous circulation but is not well correlated with survival to discharge. This suggests that current awards for resuscitation quality may not adequately capture hospital performance on overall survival-the outcome of greatest interest to patients.",
keywords = "heart arrest, outcome and process assessment (health care)",
author = "Rohan Khera and Yuanyuan Tang and Link, {Mark Steven} and Krumholz, {Harlan M.} and Saket Girotra and Chan, {Paul S.}",
year = "2019",
month = "3",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005429",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "12",
pages = "e005429",
journal = "Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes",
issn = "1941-7713",
publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Association Between Hospital Recognition for Resuscitation Guideline Adherence and Rates of Survival for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest

AU - Khera, Rohan

AU - Tang, Yuanyuan

AU - Link, Mark Steven

AU - Krumholz, Harlan M.

AU - Girotra, Saket

AU - Chan, Paul S.

PY - 2019/3/1

Y1 - 2019/3/1

N2 - Background Hospitals participating in the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry receive an award for high rates of adherence to quality metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to evaluate whether awards based on these quality metrics can be considered a proxy for performance on cardiac arrest survival. Methods and Results Among 195 hospitals with continuous participation in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation between 2012 and 2015, we identified 78 that received an award (Gold or Silver) for ≥85% compliance for all 4 metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest-time to chest compressions, ≤1 minute; time to defibrillation, ≤2 minutes; device confirmation of endotracheal tube placement; and a monitored/witnessed arrest-for at least 12 consecutive months during 2014 to 2015. Award hospitals had higher cardiac arrest volumes than nonaward hospitals but otherwise had similar site characteristics. During 2014 to 2015, award hospitals had higher rates of return of spontaneous circulation for in-hospital cardiac arrest than nonaward hospitals (median [interquartile range], 71% [64%-77%] versus 66% [59%-74%]; Spearman ρ, 0.19; P=0.009). However, rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge at award hospitals (median, 25% [interquartile range, 22%-30%]) were similar to nonaward hospitals (median, 24% [interquartile range, 12%-27%]; Spearman ρ, 0.13; P=0.06). Among hospitals in the best tertile for survival to discharge in 2014 to 2015, 55.4% (36/65) did not receive an award, with poor discrimination of high-performing hospitals by award status (C statistic, 0.53). Similarly, there was only a weak association between hospitals' award status in 2014 to 2015 and their rates of survival to discharge in the preceding 2-year period (Spearman ρ, 0.16; P=0.03). Conclusions The current recognition mechanism within a national registry for in-hospital cardiac arrest captures hospital performance on return of spontaneous circulation but is not well correlated with survival to discharge. This suggests that current awards for resuscitation quality may not adequately capture hospital performance on overall survival-the outcome of greatest interest to patients.

AB - Background Hospitals participating in the national Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation registry receive an award for high rates of adherence to quality metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest. We sought to evaluate whether awards based on these quality metrics can be considered a proxy for performance on cardiac arrest survival. Methods and Results Among 195 hospitals with continuous participation in Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation between 2012 and 2015, we identified 78 that received an award (Gold or Silver) for ≥85% compliance for all 4 metrics for in-hospital cardiac arrest-time to chest compressions, ≤1 minute; time to defibrillation, ≤2 minutes; device confirmation of endotracheal tube placement; and a monitored/witnessed arrest-for at least 12 consecutive months during 2014 to 2015. Award hospitals had higher cardiac arrest volumes than nonaward hospitals but otherwise had similar site characteristics. During 2014 to 2015, award hospitals had higher rates of return of spontaneous circulation for in-hospital cardiac arrest than nonaward hospitals (median [interquartile range], 71% [64%-77%] versus 66% [59%-74%]; Spearman ρ, 0.19; P=0.009). However, rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge at award hospitals (median, 25% [interquartile range, 22%-30%]) were similar to nonaward hospitals (median, 24% [interquartile range, 12%-27%]; Spearman ρ, 0.13; P=0.06). Among hospitals in the best tertile for survival to discharge in 2014 to 2015, 55.4% (36/65) did not receive an award, with poor discrimination of high-performing hospitals by award status (C statistic, 0.53). Similarly, there was only a weak association between hospitals' award status in 2014 to 2015 and their rates of survival to discharge in the preceding 2-year period (Spearman ρ, 0.16; P=0.03). Conclusions The current recognition mechanism within a national registry for in-hospital cardiac arrest captures hospital performance on return of spontaneous circulation but is not well correlated with survival to discharge. This suggests that current awards for resuscitation quality may not adequately capture hospital performance on overall survival-the outcome of greatest interest to patients.

KW - heart arrest

KW - outcome and process assessment (health care)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062948981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85062948981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005429

DO - 10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.118.005429

M3 - Article

VL - 12

SP - e005429

JO - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

JF - Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes

SN - 1941-7713

IS - 3

ER -