| 1. |
- Rapsomaniki, Eleni, et al.
(författare)
-
Using big data from health records from four countries to evaluate chronic disease outcomes : a study in 114 364 survivors of myocardial infarction
- 2016
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal - Quality of Care and Clinical Outcomes. - : Oxford University Press. - 2058-5225 .- 2058-1742. ; 2:3, s. 172-183
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims To assess the international validity of using hospital record data to compare long-term outcomes in heart attack survivors.Methods and results We used samples of national, ongoing, unselected record sources to assess three outcomes: cause death; a composite of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and all-cause death; and hospitalized bleeding. Patients aged 65 years and older entered the study 1 year following the most recent discharge for acute MI in 2002–11 [n = 54 841 (Sweden), 53 909 (USA), 4653 (England), and 961 (France)]. Across each of the four countries, we found consistent associations with 12 baseline prognostic factors and each of the three outcomes. In each country, we observed high 3-year crude cumulative risks of all-cause death (from 19.6% [England] to 30.2% [USA]); the composite of MI, stroke, or death [from 26.0% (France) to 36.2% (USA)]; and hospitalized bleeding [from 3.1% (France) to 5.3% (USA)]. After adjustments for baseline risk factors, risks were similar across all countries [relative risks (RRs) compared with Sweden not statistically significant], but higher in the USA for all-cause death [RR USA vs. Sweden, 1.14 (95% confidence interval 1.04–1.26)] and hospitalized bleeding [RR USA vs. Sweden, 1.54 (1.21–1.96)].Conclusion The validity of using hospital record data is supported by the consistency of estimates across four countries of a high adjusted risk of death, further MI, and stroke in the chronic phase after MI. The possibility that adjusted risks of mortality and bleeding are higher in the USA warrants further study.
|
|
| 2. |
- Schiele, Francois, et al.
(författare)
-
Quality indicators for acute myocardial infarction : A position paper of the Acute Cardiovascular Care Association.
- 2017
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Sage Publications. - 2048-8726 .- 2048-8734. ; 6:1, s. 34-59
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Evaluation of quality of care is an integral part of modern healthcare, and has become an indispensable tool for health authorities, the public, the press and patients. However, measuring quality of care is difficult, because it is a multifactorial and multidimensional concept that cannot be estimated solely on the basis of patients' clinical outcomes. Thus, measuring the process of care through quality indicators (QIs) has become a widely used practice in this context. Other professional societies have published QIs for the evaluation of quality of care in the context of acute myocardial infarction (AMI), but no such indicators exist in Europe. In this context, the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA) has reflected on the measurement of quality of care in the context of AMI (ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)) and created a set of QIs, with a view to developing programmes to improve quality of care for the management of AMI across Europe. We present here the list of QIs defined by the ACCA, with explanations of the methodology used, scientific justification and reasons for the choice for each measure.
|
|
