Dataset Information

Improving quality of stroke care through benchmarking center performance: why focusing on outcomes is not enough.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Between-center variation in outcome may offer opportunities to identify variation in quality of care. By intervening on these quality differences, patient outcomes may be improved. However, whether observed differences in outcome reflect the true quality improvement potential is not known for many diseases. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the effect of differences in performance on structure and processes of care, and case-mix on between-center differences in outcome after endovascular treatment (EVT) for ischemic stroke. METHODS:In this observational cohort study, ischemic stroke patients who received EVT between 2014 and 2017 in all 17 Dutch EVT-centers were included. Primary outcome was the modified Rankin Scale, ranging from 0 (no symptoms) to 6 (death), at 90?days. We used random effect proportional odds regression modelling, to analyze the effect of differences in structure indicators (center volume and year of admission), process indicators (time to treatment and use of general anesthesia) and case-mix, by tracking changes in tau2, which represents the amount of between-center variation in outcome. RESULTS:Three thousand two hundred seventy-nine patients were included. Performance on structure and process indicators varied significantly between EVT-centers (P?

SUBMITTER: Amini M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7603730 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving quality of stroke care through benchmarking center performance: why focusing on outcomes is not enough.

Amini Marzyeh M van Leeuwen Nikki N Eijkenaar Frank F Mulder Maxim J H L MJHL Schonewille Wouter W Lycklama À Nijeholt Geert G Hinsenveld Wouter H WH Goldhoorn Robert-Jan B RB van Doormaal Pieter Jan PJ Jenniskens Sjoerd S Hazelzet Jan J Dippel Diederik W J DWJ Roozenbeek Bob B Lingsma Hester F HF

BMC health services research 20201031 1

<h4>Background</h4>Between-center variation in outcome may offer opportunities to identify variation in quality of care. By intervening on these quality differences, patient outcomes may be improved. However, whether observed differences in outcome reflect the true quality improvement potential is not known for many diseases. Therefore, we aimed to analyze the effect of differences in performance on structure and processes of care, and case-mix on between-center differences in outcome after endo ...[more]

PMID: 33129362

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTranslating research evidence into clinical practice often uses key performance indicators to monitor quality of care. We conducted a systematic review to identify the stroke key performance indicators used in large registries, and to estimate their association with patient outcomes.MethodWe sought publications of recent (January 2000-May 2017) national or regional stroke registers reporting the association of key performance indicators with patient outcome (adjusting for age and stroke severity). We searched Ovid Medline, EMBASE and PubMed and screened references from bibliographies. We used an inverse variance random effects meta-analysis to estimate associations (odds ratio; 95% confidence interval) with death or poor outcome (death or disability) at the end of follow-up.FindingsWe identified 30 eligible studies (324,409 patients). The commonest key performance indicators were swallowing/nutritional assessment, stroke unit admission, antiplatelet use for ischaemic stroke, brain imaging and anticoagulant use for ischaemic stroke with atrial fibrillation, lipid management, deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis and early physiotherapy/mobilisation. Lower case fatality was associated with stroke unit admission (odds ratio 0.79; 0.72-0.87), swallow/nutritional assessment (odds ratio 0.78; 0.66-0.92) and antiplatelet use for ischaemic stroke (odds ratio 0.61; 0.50-0.74) or anticoagulant use for ischaemic stroke with atrial fibrillation (odds ratio 0.51; 0.43-0.64), lipid management (odds ratio 0.52; 0.38-0.71) and early physiotherapy or mobilisation (odds ratio 0.78; 0.67-0.91). Reduced poor outcome was associated with adherence to swallowing/nutritional assessment (odds ratio 0.58; 0.43-0.78) and stroke unit admission (odds ratio 0.83; 0.77-0.89). Adherence with several key performance indicators appeared to have an additive benefit.DiscussionAdherence with common key performance indicators was consistently associated with a lower risk of death or disability after stroke.ConclusionPolicy makers and health care professionals should implement and monitor those key performance indicators supported by good evidence.

Project description:While prehospital triage to the closest comprehensive stroke center (CSC) may improve the delivery of care for patients with suspected emergent large-vessel occlusion (ELVO), efficient systems of care must also exist for patients with ELVO who first present to a primary stroke center (PSC).To describe the association of a PSC protocol focused on 3 key steps (early CSC notification based on clinical severity, vessel imaging at the PSC, and cloud-based image sharing) with the efficiency of care and the outcomes of patients with suspected ELVO who first present to a PSC.In this retrospective cohort study, 14 regional PSCs unfamiliar with the management of patients with ELVO were instructed on the use of the following protocol for patients presenting with a Los Angeles Motor Scale score 4 or higher: (1) notify the CSC on arrival, (2) perform computed tomographic angiography concurrently with noncontract computed tomography of the brain and within 30 minutes of arrival, and (3) share imaging data with the CSC using a cloud-based platform. A total of 101 patients were transferred from regional PSCs to the CSC between July 1, 2015, and May 31, 2016, and received mechanical thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke. The CSC serves approximately 1.7 million people and partners with 14 PSCs located between 6.4 and 73.6 km away. All consecutive patients with internal carotid artery or middle cerebral artery occlusions transferred over an 11-month period were reviewed, and they were divided into 2 groups based on whether the PSC protocol was partially or fully executed.The primary outcomes were efficiency measures including time from PSC door in to PSC door out, time from PSC door to CSC groin puncture, and 90-day modified Rankin Scale score (range, 0-6; scores of 0-2 indicate a good outcome).Although 101 patients were transferred, only 70 patients met the inclusion criteria during the study period. The protocol was partially executed for 48 patients (68.6%) (mean age, 77 years [interquartile range, 65-84 years]; 22 of the 48 patients [45.0%] were women) and fully executed for 22 patients (31.4%) (mean age, 76 years [interquartile range, 59-86 years]; 13 of the 22 patients [59.1%] were women). When fully executed, the protocol was associated with a reduction in the median time for PSC arrival to CSC groin puncture (from 151 minutes [95% CI, 141-166 minutes] to 111 minutes [95% CI, 88-130 minutes]; P?<?.001). This was primarily related to an improvement in the time from PSC door in to door out that reduced from a median time of 104 minutes (95% CI, 82-112 minutes) to a median time of 64 minutes (95% CI, 51-71.0 minutes) (P?<?.001). When the protocol was fully executed, patients were twice as likely to have a favorable outcome (50% vs 25%, P?<?.04).When fully implemented, a standardized protocol at PSCs for patients with suspected ELVO consisting of early CSC notification, computed tomographic angiography on arrival to the PSC, and cloud-based image sharing is associated with a reduction in time to groin puncture and improved outcomes.

Dataset Information

Improving quality of stroke care through benchmarking center performance: why focusing on outcomes is not enough.

Publications

Improving quality of stroke care through benchmarking center performance: why focusing on outcomes is not enough.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure