Dataset Information

Measuring Cardiovascular Quality in Primary Care Using Canadian Cardiovascular Harmonization of National Guidelines Endeavour and Electronic Medical Record Data in Ontario

ABSTRACT:

Background

This project uses electronic medical record (EMR) data to assess performance by family physicians (FPs) in the screening for, diagnosis, and management of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and risk factors against national harmonized guidelines by the Canadian Cardiovascular Harmonization of National Guidelines Endeavour (C-CHANGE).

Methods

A retrospective cohort study using the Electronic Medical Record Administrative Data Linked Database (EMRALD) was conducted. A set of quality indicators (QIs) were developed on the basis of the 2014 C-CHANGE guidelines. Twenty-three readily measurable QIs were used to measure performance in the screening for and management of CVD, and to identify gaps in performance.

Results

Our study population consisted of 324 Ontario FPs and 284,959 patients. We assessed 23 of the 74 recommendations. There was variance in rates of adherence to QIs related to screening rates for CVD. Highest adherence to C-CHANGE guidelines was related to laboratory testing for patients with hypertension and prescription of antihypertensive therapies (? 91.4%). Lowest adherence to the guidelines was seen in administration of oral glucose tolerance tests for assessing prediabetic patients (4.4%).

Conclusions

FP EMR data can be used to measure adherence to one-third of the C-CHANGE recommendations. There are varying levels of adherence among the measurable C-CHANGE recommendations, and there is room for improvement in quality of primary care management of CVD in Ontario. There is potential to use EMR data to assess changes to CVD management in FP practice using guidelines if recommendations are quantifiable and measurable.

SUBMITTER: Lee T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7063608 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCollaboration is vital within health care institutions, and it allows for the effective use of collective health care worker (HCW) expertise. Human-computer interactions involving electronic health records (EHRs) have become pervasive and act as an avenue for quantifying these collaborations using statistical and network analysis methods.ObjectiveWe aimed to measure HCW collaboration and its characteristics by analyzing concurrent EHR usage.MethodsBy extracting concurrent EHR usage events from audit log data, we defined concurrent sessions. For each HCW, we established a metric called concurrent intensity, which was the proportion of EHR activities in concurrent sessions over all EHR activities. Statistical models were used to test the differences in the concurrent intensity between HCWs. For each patient visit, starting from admission to discharge, we measured concurrent EHR usage across all HCWs, which we called temporal patterns. Again, we applied statistical models to test the differences in temporal patterns of the admission, discharge, and intermediate days of hospital stay between weekdays and weekends. Network analysis was leveraged to measure collaborative relationships among HCWs. We surveyed experts to determine if they could distinguish collaborative relationships between high and low likelihood categories derived from concurrent EHR usage. Clustering was used to aggregate concurrent activities to describe concurrent sessions. We gathered 4 months of EHR audit log data from a large academic medical center's neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) to validate the effectiveness of our framework.ResultsThere was a significant difference (P<.001) in the concurrent intensity (proportion of concurrent activities: ranging from mean 0.07, 95% CI 0.06-0.08, to mean 0.36, 95% CI 0.18-0.54; proportion of time spent on concurrent activities: ranging from mean 0.32, 95% CI 0.20-0.44, to mean 0.76, 95% CI 0.51-1.00) between the top 13 HCW specialties who had the largest amount of time spent in EHRs. Temporal patterns between weekday and weekend periods were significantly different on admission (number of concurrent intervals per hour: 11.60 vs 0.54; P<.001) and discharge days (4.72 vs 1.54; P<.001), but not during intermediate days of hospital stay. Neonatal nurses, fellows, frontline providers, neonatologists, consultants, respiratory therapists, and ancillary and support staff had collaborative relationships. NICU professionals could distinguish high likelihood collaborative relationships from low ones at significant rates (3.54, 95% CI 3.31-4.37 vs 2.64, 95% CI 2.46-3.29; P<.001). We identified 50 clusters of concurrent activities. Over 87% of concurrent sessions could be described by a single cluster, with the remaining 13% of sessions comprising multiple clusters.ConclusionsLeveraging concurrent EHR usage workflow through audit logs to analyze HCW collaboration may improve our understanding of collaborative patient care. HCW collaboration using EHRs could potentially influence the quality of patient care, discharge timeliness, and clinician workload, stress, or burnout.

Project description:IntroductionThe most common cause of hospital emergency department visits is trauma resulting from a variety of underlying mechanisms. Unknown neck and spinal cord injuries and a lack of early diagnosis can have catastrophic consequences, such as paralysis of some or all limbs. The use of imaging techniques reduces the number of patients suffering from severe injuries.ObjectiveTo assess and compare the effectiveness and ease of utilizing two different sets of guidelines, the National Emergency X-Radiography Utilization Study guidelines (NEXUS) and the Canadian C-Spine guidelines (CCR), on trauma patients.MethodsThis study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tabriz University of Medical Sciences. Of all the patients presenting to the hospital, 200 trauma patients were randomly included in the study. NEXUS and CCR were surveyed for each patient, and subsequent radiographies were also requested. The specificity and sensitivity of each of the methods was calculated, and the two methods were compared using Kendall's W test.ResultsA total of 200 trauma patients who met the inclusion criteria were included in the study. A total of 69.5% of the patients were male, and 30.5% were female. According to NEXUS guidelines, 47.5% of the patients were required to undergo neck radiography. According to CCR guidelines, 57.5% of the patients were required to undergo neck radiography. The sensitivity was found to be 90% for neck radiography by both NEXUS and CCR guidelines, while specificities were found to be 54.73% and 44.2% for NEXUS and CCR guidelines, respectively.ConclusionThis study showed that the two guidelines have the same sensitivity for evaluating which trauma patients need to undergo radiography. It seems that the NEXUS guidelines have the same effectiveness as CCR for determining which trauma patients need to undergo radiography. They also perform better than CCR guidelines in terms of ruling out which cases need no further radiologic investigation.