Impact of In-Hospital Quality of Care Improvement Initiative on Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Six Months After Patient Discharge: A Large Stepped Wedge- and Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

IF 6.2 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Gaoqiang Xie, Anushka Patel, Xin Du, Yihong Sun, Xian Li, Tao Wu, Zhixin Hao, Runlin Gao, Yangfeng Wu
{"title":"Impact of In-Hospital Quality of Care Improvement Initiative on Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Syndrome in Six Months After Patient Discharge: A Large Stepped Wedge- and Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.","authors":"Gaoqiang Xie, Anushka Patel, Xin Du, Yihong Sun, Xian Li, Tao Wu, Zhixin Hao, Runlin Gao, Yangfeng Wu","doi":"10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patients discharged after acute coronary syndrome experience a high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within the first 6 months. We examined whether a quality of care improvement initiative implemented in hospitals affects clinical preventive management and outcomes after discharge.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used data from the third phase of the CPACS-3 study (Clinical Pathways for Acute Coronary Syndromes in China), a large stepped wedge- and cluster-randomized trial conducted from 2011 to 2015, to evaluate the effectiveness of an in-hospital quality of care improvement program on the composite score of preventive medication use and the risk of MACE in 6 months after discharge among acute coronary syndrome survivors. The intervention included establishing a quality of care improvement team, training clinical staff, implementing acute coronary syndrome clinical pathways, performance assessment and feedback, online technical support, and patient education. A total of 101 hospitals were randomized into 4 wedges, and the intervention was initiated randomly by wedge and step. Participants recruited before (control) and after (intervention) the intervention initiation were compared with generalized estimating equations, adjusting for clustering and time trend.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 23 258 patients (11 224 in the intervention group and 12 034 in the control group), with a mean age of 63.6±11.6 years and 39% women, had available follow-up data on MACE and 14 826 patients (6813 in the intervention group and 8013 in the control group) had available data on preventive medication use at 6 months were analyzed. Compared with the control period, the mean preventive medication use score during the intervention period was higher at 6 months (65.8 versus 60.4 for intervention and control periods, adjusted mean difference, 3.7 [95% CI, 0.3-7.0]), but the 6-month incidence of MACE showed no difference (5.8% versus 6.6%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.83-1.29]).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The in-hospital multifaceted quality of care improvement intervention in resource-constrained Chinese hospitals increased preventive medication use among acute coronary syndrome survivors in the 6 months after discharge, but this did not translate into a reduction in MACE.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01398228.</p>","PeriodicalId":49221,"journal":{"name":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","volume":" ","pages":"e011441"},"PeriodicalIF":6.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.124.011441","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Patients discharged after acute coronary syndrome experience a high risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within the first 6 months. We examined whether a quality of care improvement initiative implemented in hospitals affects clinical preventive management and outcomes after discharge.

Methods: We used data from the third phase of the CPACS-3 study (Clinical Pathways for Acute Coronary Syndromes in China), a large stepped wedge- and cluster-randomized trial conducted from 2011 to 2015, to evaluate the effectiveness of an in-hospital quality of care improvement program on the composite score of preventive medication use and the risk of MACE in 6 months after discharge among acute coronary syndrome survivors. The intervention included establishing a quality of care improvement team, training clinical staff, implementing acute coronary syndrome clinical pathways, performance assessment and feedback, online technical support, and patient education. A total of 101 hospitals were randomized into 4 wedges, and the intervention was initiated randomly by wedge and step. Participants recruited before (control) and after (intervention) the intervention initiation were compared with generalized estimating equations, adjusting for clustering and time trend.

Results: A total of 23 258 patients (11 224 in the intervention group and 12 034 in the control group), with a mean age of 63.6±11.6 years and 39% women, had available follow-up data on MACE and 14 826 patients (6813 in the intervention group and 8013 in the control group) had available data on preventive medication use at 6 months were analyzed. Compared with the control period, the mean preventive medication use score during the intervention period was higher at 6 months (65.8 versus 60.4 for intervention and control periods, adjusted mean difference, 3.7 [95% CI, 0.3-7.0]), but the 6-month incidence of MACE showed no difference (5.8% versus 6.6%, adjusted odds ratio, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.83-1.29]).

Conclusions: The in-hospital multifaceted quality of care improvement intervention in resource-constrained Chinese hospitals increased preventive medication use among acute coronary syndrome survivors in the 6 months after discharge, but this did not translate into a reduction in MACE.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01398228.

院内护理质量改进计划对患者出院后六个月内急性冠状动脉综合征二级预防的影响:大型阶梯式楔形和集群随机对照试验》。
背景:急性冠状动脉综合征后出院的患者在最初 6 个月内发生主要不良心血管事件 (MACE) 的风险很高。我们研究了医院实施的护理质量改进措施是否会影响临床预防管理和出院后的预后:我们利用 CPACS-3 研究(中国急性冠脉综合征临床路径)第三阶段的数据,评估了院内护理质量改进计划对急性冠脉综合征幸存者预防性用药综合评分和出院后 6 个月内 MACE 风险的影响。干预措施包括建立护理质量改进团队、培训临床人员、实施急性冠脉综合征临床路径、绩效评估和反馈、在线技术支持以及患者教育。共有 101 家医院被随机分为 4 个楔形区,干预按楔形区和步骤随机启动。采用广义估计方程对干预启动前(对照组)和干预启动后(干预组)招募的参与者进行比较,并对分组和时间趋势进行调整:共对 23 258 名患者(干预组 11 224 人,对照组 12 034 人)(平均年龄为 63.6±11.6 岁,女性占 39%)的 MACE 随访数据和 14 826 名患者(干预组 6813 人,对照组 8013 人)的 6 个月预防用药数据进行了分析。与对照组相比,干预组在6个月时的预防性用药平均得分更高(干预组和对照组分别为65.8分和60.4分,调整后的平均差异为3.7 [95% CI, 0.3-7.0]),但6个月的MACE发生率没有差异(干预组为5.8%,对照组为6.6%,调整后的几率比为1.04 [95% CI, 0.83-1.29]):结论:在资源有限的中国医院开展的院内多方面护理质量改进干预措施提高了急性冠脉综合征幸存者出院后6个月内预防性用药的使用率,但这并没有转化为MACE的减少:URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier:NCT01398228。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes
Circulation-Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
357
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes, an American Heart Association journal, publishes articles related to improving cardiovascular health and health care. Content includes original research, reviews, and case studies relevant to clinical decision-making and healthcare policy. The online-only journal is dedicated to furthering the mission of promoting safe, effective, efficient, equitable, timely, and patient-centered care. Through its articles and contributions, the journal equips you with the knowledge you need to improve clinical care and population health, and allows you to engage in scholarly activities of consequence to the health of the public. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes considers the following types of articles: Original Research Articles, Data Reports, Methods Papers, Cardiovascular Perspectives, Care Innovations, Novel Statistical Methods, Policy Briefs, Data Visualizations, and Caregiver or Patient Viewpoints.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信