BMJ open · 2025
Completion of registration of risk factor variables during telephone vs on-site follow-up after myocardial infarction: a nationwide observational study in 101 199 patients from contemporary clinical practice in Sweden.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ögmundsdottir Michelsen Halldora, Bäck Maria, Ekström Mattias, Hadziosmanovic Nermin, Hagstrom Emil, Leosdottir Margret
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to assess the completeness of registration of secondary preventive variables comparing on-site visits with telephone consultations during follow-up after myocardial infarction.
DESIGN: This was an observational study based on the Swedish quality registry SWEDEHEART.
SETTING AND OUTCOME MEASURES: We analysed the proportion of missing values for major secondary preventive target data registered at the 2-month and 1-year follow-up visits, during 2006-2022 (n=101 199). χ2 tests were used to compare differences in data registration comparing on-site visits with telephone consultations. Patient characteristics and time trends in the proportion of missing values were also analysed.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for patients with on-site visits and telephone consultations were similar. At the 2-month follow-up, the proportion of missing data registered at on-site visits compared with telephone consultations was systolic blood pressure 2.4% (n=1729) vs 28.0% (n=5462), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 9.1% (n=6525) vs 32.6% (n=6360), weight 20.1% (n=14 343) vs 43.0% (n=8401) and haemoglobin A1c for patients with diabetes mellitus 39.4% (n=4594) vs 69.4% (n=2225), p for all <0.0001. The differences were similar at the 1-year follow-up. Self-reported measures such as smoking status, level of physical activity and current medication had a low proportion of missing data (≤2.1%) for both follow-up modalities.
CONCLUSION: Registration of secondary preventive variables was less complete at telephone consultations compared with on-site cardiac rehabilitation follow-up visits, which might indicate lower quality of care during telephone follow-up. Further analysis on the possible impact of lack of registration of secondary preventive variables on patient outcomes is warranted.
DESIGN: This was an observational study based on the Swedish quality registry SWEDEHEART.
SETTING AND OUTCOME MEASURES: We analysed the proportion of missing values for major secondary preventive target data registered at the 2-month and 1-year follow-up visits, during 2006-2022 (n=101 199). χ2 tests were used to compare differences in data registration comparing on-site visits with telephone consultations. Patient characteristics and time trends in the proportion of missing values were also analysed.
RESULTS: Baseline characteristics for patients with on-site visits and telephone consultations were similar. At the 2-month follow-up, the proportion of missing data registered at on-site visits compared with telephone consultations was systolic blood pressure 2.4% (n=1729) vs 28.0% (n=5462), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol 9.1% (n=6525) vs 32.6% (n=6360), weight 20.1% (n=14 343) vs 43.0% (n=8401) and haemoglobin A1c for patients with diabetes mellitus 39.4% (n=4594) vs 69.4% (n=2225), p for all <0.0001. The differences were similar at the 1-year follow-up. Self-reported measures such as smoking status, level of physical activity and current medication had a low proportion of missing data (≤2.1%) for both follow-up modalities.
CONCLUSION: Registration of secondary preventive variables was less complete at telephone consultations compared with on-site cardiac rehabilitation follow-up visits, which might indicate lower quality of care during telephone follow-up. Further analysis on the possible impact of lack of registration of secondary preventive variables on patient outcomes is warranted.