Skip Navigation LinksHome > March 2010 - Volume 9 - Issue 1 > Regional Differences in Quality of Care and Outcomes for the...
Text sizing:
A
A
A
Critical Pathways in Cardiology: A Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine:
doi: 10.1097/HPC.0b013e3181cdb5a5
Original Article

Regional Differences in Quality of Care and Outcomes for the Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndromes: An Analysis From the Get With the Guidelines Coronary Artery Disease Program

Laskey, Warren MD*; Spence, Nathan MD*; Zhao, Xin BA†; Mayo, Rebecca RN, PhD, MA, CNP*; Taylor, Robert MD*; Cannon, Christopher P. MD‡; Hernandez, Adrian F. MD§; Peterson, Eric D. MD, MPH†§; Fonarow, Gregg C. MD¶

Collapse Box

Abstract

Background: Geographic differences in the delivery of guideline-driven care following acute myocardial infarction have been described. The effect of hospital participation in a national performance improvement program on regional variation in quality of care and in-hospital outcomes for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is unknown.

Methods: We evaluated the variation in conformity to the American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines–Coronary Artery Disease Program quality measures across 4 geographic regions (Northeast, Midwest, South, and East) in 161,236 patients admitted for ACS to 436 Get With The Guidelines hospitals. We evaluated 6 measures (aspirin within 24 hours, aspirin at discharge, ACEI or ARB therapy for left ventricular systolic dysfunction, beta-blocker at discharge, lipid-lowering medication for qualified patients, smoking cessation advice); a binary “all-or-none” process performance measure (primary outcome); an “opportunity-based” overall composite score (secondary outcome); in-hospital length of stay, and in-hospital mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to test the associations between performance measures and short-term outcomes and geographic region.

Results: Data were collected from January 2, 2000 to January 2, 2008. There was no significant regional variation in either the “all-or-none” (Northeast: 79.3%; Midwest: 83.2%; South: 78.9%; West: 81.6%) or “opportunity-based” (Northeast: 91.9%; Midwest: 93.6%; South: 91.5%; West: 92.6%) composite performance measures. Both performance measures exhibited significant improvement with participation time irrespective of region. In-hospital mortality was similar among regions. Adjusted hospital length of stay was significantly shorter in the Midwest.

Conclusion: Quality improvement program participation may help to facilitate high quality, consistent care for patients with ACS.

© 2010 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.

Login

Article Tools

Share

Article Level Metrics

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.