Circulation. Cardiovascular quality and outcomes · 2024
International Comparison of Quality Indicators for Adults Hospitalized for Heart Failure: A Systematic Review.
Систематический обзорСтатьяСравнительное 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.
Garcia Acevedo Giliana, Ahmad Aisha, Stall Benjamin, Mokhtarnia Media, Lapp John M, Verma Amol A, Ebrahim Jalal, Van Spall Harriette G C, Razak Fahad, Isenberg Sarina R, Etchells Edward, Mak Susanna, Steinberg Leah, Ko Dennis T, Poon Stephanie, Quinn Kieran L
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There is limited international agreement on defining care quality for the millions of people hospitalized with heart failure worldwide. Our objective was to compare and measure agreement across existing internationally published quality indicators (QIs) for the care of adults hospitalized for heart failure.
METHODS: Systematic review and evidence gap map of internationally published articles reporting on QIs for adults hospitalized for heart failure, using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TRIP from inception to July 18, 2022. Narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics characterized included articles and QIs using the Donabedian Framework of Structural, Process, and Outcomes. The methodological quality of QI sets was assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation instrument. Agreement about QIs was defined as having at least 3 different cardiovascular societies recommend its use. An evidence gap map displayed each QI according to its clinically relevant category, methodological quality, and reporting articles.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles from 11 societies reported 75 unique QIs; 53 QIs were process, 16 were structural, and 7 were outcome measures. There was limited agreement on individual QIs across sets as a minority were recommended by ≥3 societies (12%; 9/75 QIs). The most common QIs included postdischarge follow-up (73%, 8/11 societies), specific pharmacotherapy (64%, 7/11 societies), patient education (45%, 5/11 societies), assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (45%, 5/11 societies), 30-day readmission rate (45%, 5/11 societies), cardiac rehabilitation (36%, 4/11 societies), and multidisciplinary management (27%, 3/11 societies).
CONCLUSIONS: There was little agreement on defining high-quality care and limited agreement on measures including postdischarge follow-up, specific pharmacotherapies, patient education, assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction, 30-day readmission, cardiac rehabilitation, and multidisciplinary management. These measures may define high-quality care and highlight opportunities to improve the quality of care for adults hospitalized for heart failure.
METHODS: Systematic review and evidence gap map of internationally published articles reporting on QIs for adults hospitalized for heart failure, using PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and TRIP from inception to July 18, 2022. Narrative synthesis and descriptive statistics characterized included articles and QIs using the Donabedian Framework of Structural, Process, and Outcomes. The methodological quality of QI sets was assessed using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation instrument. Agreement about QIs was defined as having at least 3 different cardiovascular societies recommend its use. An evidence gap map displayed each QI according to its clinically relevant category, methodological quality, and reporting articles.
RESULTS: Fourteen articles from 11 societies reported 75 unique QIs; 53 QIs were process, 16 were structural, and 7 were outcome measures. There was limited agreement on individual QIs across sets as a minority were recommended by ≥3 societies (12%; 9/75 QIs). The most common QIs included postdischarge follow-up (73%, 8/11 societies), specific pharmacotherapy (64%, 7/11 societies), patient education (45%, 5/11 societies), assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction (45%, 5/11 societies), 30-day readmission rate (45%, 5/11 societies), cardiac rehabilitation (36%, 4/11 societies), and multidisciplinary management (27%, 3/11 societies).
CONCLUSIONS: There was little agreement on defining high-quality care and limited agreement on measures including postdischarge follow-up, specific pharmacotherapies, patient education, assessment of left ventricular ejection fraction, 30-day readmission, cardiac rehabilitation, and multidisciplinary management. These measures may define high-quality care and highlight opportunities to improve the quality of care for adults hospitalized for heart failure.