Mats Bojestig

Improved Clinical Outcome After Acute Myocardial Infarction in Hospitals Participating in a Swedish Quality Improvement Initiative

Background—The Swedish quality improvement initiative Quality Improvement in Coronary Care previously demonstrated significant improvements in caregiver adherence to national guidelines for acute myocardial infarction. The associated impact on 1-year clinical outcome is presented here. Methods and Results—During the baseline period July 2001 to June 2002, 6878 consecutive acute myocardial infarction patients <80 years were included at the 19 intervention and 19 control hospitals and followed for a mean of 12 months. During the postintervention period of May 2003 to April 2004, 6484 patients were included and followed in the same way. From baseline to postintervention, improvements in mortality and cardiovascular readmission rates (events per 100 patient-years) were significant in the intervention group (−2.82, 95% CI −5.26 to −0.39; −9.31, 95% CI −15.48 to −3.14, respectively). However, in the control hospitals, there were no significant improvements (0.04, 95% CI −2.40 to 2.47; −4.93, 95% CI −11.10 to 1.24, respectively). Bleedings in the control group increased in incidence (0.92, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.43), whereas the incidence remained unchanged in the intervention group (0.07, 95% CI −0.44 to 0.58). When the difference of changes between the study groups were evaluated, the results still were in favor of the intervention group, albeit significant only for bleeding complications (mortality: −2.70, 95% CI −6.37 to 0.97; cardiovascular readmissions: −6.85, 95% CI −16.62 to 2.93; bleeding complications: −0.82, 95% CI −1.66 to 0.01). Conclusions—With a systematic quality improvement initiative aiming to increase the adherence to acute myocardial infarction guidelines, it is possible to achieve long-term positive effects on clinical outcome.

Improving guideline adherence through intensive quality improvement and the use of a National Quality Register in Sweden for acute myocardial infarction

Objective Data from the Swedish National Register in Cardiac Care have shown over the last 10 years an enduring gap between optimal treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to current guidelines and the treatment actually given. We performed a controlled, prospective study in order to evaluate the effects of applying a multidisciplinary team-based improvement methodology to the use of evidence-based treatments in AMI, together with the use of a modified National Quality Register. The project engaged 25% of the Swedish hospitals. Method Multidisciplinary teams from 20 hospitals participating in the National Register in Cardiac Care, ranging from small to large hospitals, were trained in continuous quality improvement methodology. Twenty matched hospitals served as controls. Our efforts were focused on finding and applying tools and methods to increase adherence to the national guidelines for 5 different treatments for AMI. For measurement, specially designed quality control charts were made available in the National Register for Cardiac Care. Results To close the gap, an important issue for the teams was to get all 5 treatments in place. Ten of the hospitals in the study group reduced the gap in 5 of 5 treatments by 50%, while none of the control hospitals did so. Conclusions This first, controlled prospective study of a registry supported by multidisciplinary team-based improvement methodology showed that this approach led to rapidly improved adherence to AMI guidelines in a broad spectrum of hospitals and that National Quality Registers can be helpful tools.

Cluster-randomized trial to evaluate the effects of a quality improvement program on management of non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: The European Quality Improvement Programme for Acute Coronary Syndromes (EQUIP-ACS)

BACKGROUND Registries have shown that quality of care for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) often falls below the standards recommended in professional guidelines. Quality improvement (QI) is a strategy to improve standards of clinical care for patients, but the efficacy of QI for ACS has not been tested in randomized trials. METHODS We undertook a prospective, cluster-randomized, multicenter, multinational study to evaluate the efficacy of a QI program for ACS. Participating centers collected data on consecutive admissions for non-ST-elevation ACS for 4 months before the QI intervention and 3 months after. Thirty-eight hospitals in France, Italy, Poland, Spain, and the United Kingdom were randomized to receive the QI program or not, 19 in each group. We measured 8 in-hospital quality indicators (risk stratification, coronary angiography, anticoagulation, β-blockers, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, and clopidogrel loading and maintenance) before and after the intervention and compared composite changes between the QI and non-QI groups. RESULTS A total of 2604 patients were enrolled. The absolute overall change in use of quality indicators in the QI group was 8.5% compared with 0.8% in the non-QI group (odds ratio for achieving a quality indicator in QI versus non-QI 1.66, 95% CI 1.43-1.94; P < .001). The main changes were observed in the use of risk stratification and clopidogrel loading dose. CONCLUSIONS The QI strategy resulted in a significant improvement in the quality indicators measured. This type of QI intervention can lead to useful changes in health care practice for ACS in a wide range of settings.

Quality Improvement in Coronary Care: Analysis of Sustainability and Impact on Adjacent Clinical Measures After a Swedish Controlled, Multicenter Quality Improvement Collaborative

Background Quality Improvement in Coronary Care, a Swedish multicenter, controlled quality-improvement (QI) collaborative, has shown significant improvements in adherence to national guidelines for acute myocardial infarction, as well as improved clinical outcome. The objectives of this report were to describe the sustainability of the improvements after withdrawal of study support and a consolidation period of 3 months and to report whether improvements were disseminated to treatments and diagnostic procedures other than those primarily targeted. Methods and Results Multidisciplinary teams from 19 Swedish hospitals were educated in basic QI methodologies. Another 19 matched hospitals were included as blinded controls. All evaluations were made on the hospital level, and data were obtained from a national quality registry, Swedish Register of Information and Knowledge About Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA). Sustainability indicators consisted of use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, lipid-lowering therapy, clopidogrel, low-molecular weight heparin, and coronary angiography. Dissemination indicators were use of echocardiography, stress tests, and reperfusion therapy; time delays; and length of stay. At the reevaluation period of 6 months, the improvements at the QI intervention hospitals were sustained in all indicators but 1 (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor). Between the 2 measurements, the control group improved significantly in all but 1 indicator (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor). However, at the second measurement, the absolute adherence rates of the intervention hospitals were still numerically higher in all 5 indicators, and significantly so in 1 (clopidogrel). No significant changes were observed for the dissemination indicators. Conclusions The combination of a systematic QI collaborative with a national, interactive quality registry might lead to substantial and sustained improvements in the quality of acute myocardial infarction care. However, to achieve disseminated improvements in adjacent clinical measures, those adjacent measures probably should be made explicit before any QI intervention. (J Am Heart Assoc. 2012;1:e000737 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.112.000737.)

Improving the management of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes:systematic evaluation of a quality improvement programme European QUality Improvement Programme for Acute Coronary Syndrome: the EQUIP-ACS project protocol and design

BackgroundAcute coronary syndromes, including myocardial infarction and unstable angina, are important causes of premature mortality, morbidity and hospital admissions. Acute coronary syndromes consume large amounts of health care resources, and have a major negative economic and social impact through days lost at work, support for disability, and coping with the psychological consequences of illness. Several registries have shown that evidence based treatments are under-utilised in this patient population, particularly in high-risk patients. There is evidence that systematic educational programmes can lead to improvement in the management of these patients. Since application of the results of important clinical trials and expert clinical guidelines into clinical practice leads to improved patient care and outcomes, we propose to test a quality improvement programme in a general group of hospitals in Europe.Methods/DesignThis will be a multi-centre cluster-randomised study in 5 European countries: France, Spain, Poland, Italy and the UK. Thirty eight hospitals will be randomised to receive a quality improvement programme or no quality improvement programme. Centres will enter data for all eligible non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome patients admitted to their hospital for a period of approximately 10 months onto the study database and the sample size is estimated at 2,000-4,000 patients. The primary outcome is a composite of eight measures to assess aggregate potential for improvement in the management and treatment of this patient population (risk stratification, early coronary angiography, anticoagulation, beta-blockers, statins, ACE-inhibitors, clopidogrel as a loading dose and at discharge). After the quality improvement programme, each of the eight measures will be compared between the two groups, correcting for cluster effect.DiscussionIf we can demonstrate important improvements in the quality of patient care as a result of a quality improvement programme, this could lead to a greater acceptance that such programmes should be incorporated into routine health training for health professionals and hospital managers.Trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov NCT00716430