TY - JOUR
T1 - Comparison of performance on Hospital Compare process measures and patient outcomes between hospitals that do and do not participate in Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get with the Guidelines
AU - Mathews, Robin
AU - Fonarow, Gregg C.
AU - Li, Shuang
AU - Peterson, Eric D.
AU - Rumsfeld, John S.
AU - Heidenreich, Paul A.
AU - Roe, Matthew T.
AU - Oetgen, William J.
AU - Jollis, James G.
AU - Cannon, Christopher P.
AU - de Lemos, James A
AU - Wang, Tracy Y.
N1 - Funding Information:
Dr Peterson reports research funding from the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, Eli Lilly & Company, Janssen Pharmaceutical Products, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (significant), and consulting for Merck & Co (modest), Boehringer Ingelheim, Genentech, Janssen Pharmaceutical Products, and Sanofi-Aventis (significant).
Funding Information:
This research was supported by the American College of Cardiology Foundation's NCDR. The views expressed in this manuscript represent those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of the NCDR or its associated professional societies identified at www.ncdr.com .
Publisher Copyright:
© 2016 Elsevier Inc.
Copyright:
Copyright 2017 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2016/5/1
Y1 - 2016/5/1
N2 - Background: Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines (ACTION Registry-GWTG) was designed to measure and improve the treatment and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), yet it is unknown whether performance of Medicare Hospital Compare metrics and outcomes differ between hospitals participating versus those not participating in the registry. Methods: Using 2007 to 2010 Hospital Compare data, we matched participating to nonparticipating hospitals based on teaching status, size, percutaneous coronary intervention capability, and baseline (2007) Hospital Compare AMI process measure performance. We used linear mixed modeling to compare 2010 Hospital Compare process measure adherence, 30-day risk-adjusted mortality, and readmission rates. We repeated these analyses after stratification according to baseline performance level. Results: Compared with nonparticipating hospitals, those participating were larger (median 288 vs 139 beds, P <.0001), more often teaching hospitals (18.8% vs 6.3%, P <.0001), and more likely had interventional catheterization lab capabilities (85.7% vs 34.0%, P <.0001). Among 502 matched pairs of participating and nonparticipating hospitals, we found high levels of process measure adherence in both 2007 and 2010, with minimal differences between them. Rates of 30-day mortality and readmission in 2010 were also similar between both groups. Results were consistent across strata of baseline performance level. Conclusions: In this observational analysis, there were no significant differences in the performance of Hospital Compare process measures or outcomes between hospitals in Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines and other hospitals not in the registry. However, baseline performance on the Hospital Compare process measures was very high in both groups, suggesting the need for new quality improvement foci to further improve patient outcomes.
AB - Background: Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines (ACTION Registry-GWTG) was designed to measure and improve the treatment and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), yet it is unknown whether performance of Medicare Hospital Compare metrics and outcomes differ between hospitals participating versus those not participating in the registry. Methods: Using 2007 to 2010 Hospital Compare data, we matched participating to nonparticipating hospitals based on teaching status, size, percutaneous coronary intervention capability, and baseline (2007) Hospital Compare AMI process measure performance. We used linear mixed modeling to compare 2010 Hospital Compare process measure adherence, 30-day risk-adjusted mortality, and readmission rates. We repeated these analyses after stratification according to baseline performance level. Results: Compared with nonparticipating hospitals, those participating were larger (median 288 vs 139 beds, P <.0001), more often teaching hospitals (18.8% vs 6.3%, P <.0001), and more likely had interventional catheterization lab capabilities (85.7% vs 34.0%, P <.0001). Among 502 matched pairs of participating and nonparticipating hospitals, we found high levels of process measure adherence in both 2007 and 2010, with minimal differences between them. Rates of 30-day mortality and readmission in 2010 were also similar between both groups. Results were consistent across strata of baseline performance level. Conclusions: In this observational analysis, there were no significant differences in the performance of Hospital Compare process measures or outcomes between hospitals in Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines and other hospitals not in the registry. However, baseline performance on the Hospital Compare process measures was very high in both groups, suggesting the need for new quality improvement foci to further improve patient outcomes.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84960079038&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84960079038&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.ahj.2016.01.008
DO - 10.1016/j.ahj.2016.01.008
M3 - Article
C2 - 27179718
AN - SCOPUS:84960079038
SN - 0002-8703
VL - 175
SP - 1
EP - 8
JO - American heart journal
JF - American heart journal
ER -