Dataset Information

Development of Acute Myocardial Infarction Mortality and Readmission Models for Public Reporting on Hospital Performance in Canada.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Given changes in the care and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients over the past several decades, we sought to develop prediction models that could be used to generate accurate risk-adjusted mortality and readmission outcomes for hospitals in current practice across Canada.

Methods

A Canadian national expert panel was convened to define appropriate AMI patients for reporting and develop prediction models. Preliminary candidate variable evaluation was conducted using Ontario patients hospitalized with a most responsible diagnosis of AMI from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2018. National data from the Canadian Institute for Health Information was used to develop AMI prediction models. The main outcomes were 30-day all-cause in-hospital mortality and 30-day urgent all-cause readmission. Discrimination of these models (measured by c-statistics) was compared with that of existing Canadian Institute for Health Information models in the same study cohort.

Results

The AMI mortality model was assessed in 54,240 Ontario AMI patients and 153,523 AMI patients across Canada. We observed a 30-day in-hospital mortality rate of 6.3%, and a 30-day all-cause urgent readmission rate of 10.7% in Canada. The final Canadian AMI mortality model included 12 variables and had a c-statistic of 0.834. For readmission, the model had 13 variables and a c-statistic of 0.679. Discrimination of the new AMI models had higher c-statistics compared with existing models (c-statistic 0.814 for mortality; 0.673 for readmission).

Conclusions

In this national collaboration, we developed mortality and readmission models that are suitable for profiling performance of hospitals treating AMI patients in Canada.

SUBMITTER: Ko DT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8413230 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHospitals are subject to federal financial penalties for excessive 30-day hospital readmissions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Prospectively identifying patients hospitalized with AMI at high risk for readmission could help prevent 30-day readmissions by enabling targeted interventions. However, the performance of AMI-specific readmission risk prediction models is unknown.Methods and resultsWe systematically searched the published literature through March 2017 for studies of risk prediction models for 30-day hospital readmission among adults with AMI. We identified 11 studies of 18 unique risk prediction models across diverse settings primarily in the United States, of which 16 models were specific to AMI. The median overall observed all-cause 30-day readmission rate across studies was 16.3% (range, 10.6%-21.0%). Six models were based on administrative data; 4 on electronic health record data; 3 on clinical hospital data; and 5 on cardiac registry data. Models included 7 to 37 predictors, of which demographics, comorbidities, and utilization metrics were the most frequently included domains. Most models, including the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services AMI administrative model, had modest discrimination (median C statistic, 0.65; range, 0.53-0.79). Of the 16 reported AMI-specific models, only 8 models were assessed in a validation cohort, limiting generalizability. Observed risk-stratified readmission rates ranged from 3.0% among the lowest-risk individuals to 43.0% among the highest-risk individuals, suggesting good risk stratification across all models.ConclusionsCurrent AMI-specific readmission risk prediction models have modest predictive ability and uncertain generalizability given methodological limitations. No existing models provide actionable information in real time to enable early identification and risk-stratification of patients with AMI before hospital discharge, a functionality needed to optimize the potential effectiveness of readmission reduction interventions.

Project description:BackgroundReducing hospital readmission after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) has the potential to both improve quality and reduce costs. As such, readmission after AMI has been a target of financial penalties through Medicare. However, substantial concern exists about potential adverse effects and efficacious readmission-reduction strategies are not well validated.Methods and resultsWe started an AMI readmissions reduction program in November 2017. Between July 2016 and February 2019, hospital billing data were queried to detect all inpatient hospitalizations at the Massachusetts General Hospital for AMI. Thirty-day readmission was identified through hospital billing data, and mortality was extracted from our electronic health record. The data set was merged with claims data for patients in accountable care organizations to detect readmission at other hospitals. We performed segmented linear regression, adjusting for secular trend and case mix, to assess the independent association of our program on both outcome variables. After inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, the study population included 2020 patients. The overall 30-day readmission rate was higher before the intervention than after the intervention (15.5% versus 10.7%, P=0.002). The overall 30-day mortality rate was similar in both time periods (1.8% versus 1.4%, P=0.457). The program was associated with initial reduction in 30-day readmission (-9.8%, P=0.0002) and 30-day mortality (-2.6%, P=0.041). The program did not change trend in 30-day readmission (+0.19% readmissions/mo, P=0.554) and trend in 30-day mortality (-0.21% deaths/mo, P=0.119).ConclusionsAn AMI readmissions reduction program that increases outpatient and emergency department (ED) access to cardiology care is associated with reduced 30-day readmission and 30-day mortality. Similar statistical techniques can be used to conduct a rigorous, mechanistic program evaluation of other quality improvement initiatives.

Project description:Thirty-day risk-standardized mortality rates after acute myocardial infarction are commonly used to evaluate and compare hospital performance. However, it is not known whether differences among hospitals in the early survival of patients with acute myocardial infarction are associated with differences in long-term survival.We analyzed data from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project, a study of Medicare beneficiaries who were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction between 1994 and 1996 and who had 17 years of follow-up. We grouped hospitals into five strata that were based on case-mix severity. Within each case-mix stratum, we compared life expectancy among patients admitted to high-performing hospitals with life expectancy among patients admitted to low-performing hospitals. Hospital performance was defined by quintiles of 30-day risk-standardized mortality rates. Cox proportional-hazards models were used to calculate life expectancy.The study sample included 119,735 patients with acute myocardial infarction who were admitted to 1824 hospitals. Within each case-mix stratum, survival curves of the patients admitted to hospitals in each risk-standardized mortality rate quintile separated within the first 30 days and then remained parallel over 17 years of follow-up. Estimated life expectancy declined as hospital risk-standardized mortality rate quintile increased. On average, patients treated at high-performing hospitals lived between 0.74 and 1.14 years longer, depending on hospital case mix, than patients treated at low-performing hospitals. When 30-day survivors were examined separately, there was no significant difference in unadjusted or adjusted life expectancy across hospital risk-standardized mortality rate quintiles.In this study, patients admitted to high-performing hospitals after acute myocardial infarction had longer life expectancies than patients treated in low-performing hospitals. This survival benefit occurred in the first 30 days and persisted over the long term. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences Medical Scientist Training Program.).