在医疗保健系统中进行心血管评估的患者的管理和结果:社区护理和综合退伍军人事务卫生保健的比较。

IF 5 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Stephen W Waldo, Thomas J Glorioso, Neel Butala, Paul Varosy, Claire S Duvernoy, Mary E Plomondon, Joseph Francis
{"title":"在医疗保健系统中进行心血管评估的患者的管理和结果:社区护理和综合退伍军人事务卫生保健的比较。","authors":"Stephen W Waldo, Thomas J Glorioso, Neel Butala, Paul Varosy, Claire S Duvernoy, Mary E Plomondon, Joseph Francis","doi":"10.1161/JAHA.125.041930","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System maintains the largest integrated health system in the United States but also supports fee-for-service insurance for veterans receiving care in community facilities outside the VA. We sought to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients referred for consultation in either venue, using cardiovascular evaluation as a model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study identifying patients enrolled in the VA Healthcare System referred for cardiovascular evaluation from October 2020 through September 2024 and stratified the population based on the venue in which evaluation was completed. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (acute coronary syndromes/stroke/mortality) in a matched population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 235 197 consultations for cardiovascular evaluation, 201 453 were completed in the chosen venue within 6 months. The time between consultation and evaluation was similar across venues (community, 35 days [95% CI, 17-65] versus VA, 33 days [95% CI, 19-53]), with comparable delays to diagnostic testing or therapeutic interventions. Patients receiving care in the community were more likely to undergo stress testing (43.2% versus 36.4%, <i>P</i>=1.5×10<sup>-46</sup>) and coronary angiography (23.1% versus 17.4%, <i>P</i>=2.1×10<sup>-51</sup>) within 2 years compared with those treated in the VA Healthcare System. Despite this, patients treated in the community had a significantly higher rate of major adverse events at 2 years (17.6% versus 15.3%, <i>P</i>=5.9×10<sup>-10</sup>) compared with those treated in the VA Healthcare System.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients undergoing cardiovascular evaluation in community practices were not evaluated more rapidly than those seen in the VA, though they were more likely to receive initial and repeat diagnostic testing. Adverse events were more common among community-treated patients than those in the VA, suggesting an opportunity to optimize access to care while improving clinical outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":54370,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Heart Association","volume":" ","pages":"e041930"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Management and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Cardiovascular Evaluation Across Health Care Systems: Comparison of Community Care and Integrated Veterans Affairs Health Care.\",\"authors\":\"Stephen W Waldo, Thomas J Glorioso, Neel Butala, Paul Varosy, Claire S Duvernoy, Mary E Plomondon, Joseph Francis\",\"doi\":\"10.1161/JAHA.125.041930\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System maintains the largest integrated health system in the United States but also supports fee-for-service insurance for veterans receiving care in community facilities outside the VA. We sought to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients referred for consultation in either venue, using cardiovascular evaluation as a model.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study identifying patients enrolled in the VA Healthcare System referred for cardiovascular evaluation from October 2020 through September 2024 and stratified the population based on the venue in which evaluation was completed. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (acute coronary syndromes/stroke/mortality) in a matched population.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 235 197 consultations for cardiovascular evaluation, 201 453 were completed in the chosen venue within 6 months. The time between consultation and evaluation was similar across venues (community, 35 days [95% CI, 17-65] versus VA, 33 days [95% CI, 19-53]), with comparable delays to diagnostic testing or therapeutic interventions. Patients receiving care in the community were more likely to undergo stress testing (43.2% versus 36.4%, <i>P</i>=1.5×10<sup>-46</sup>) and coronary angiography (23.1% versus 17.4%, <i>P</i>=2.1×10<sup>-51</sup>) within 2 years compared with those treated in the VA Healthcare System. Despite this, patients treated in the community had a significantly higher rate of major adverse events at 2 years (17.6% versus 15.3%, <i>P</i>=5.9×10<sup>-10</sup>) compared with those treated in the VA Healthcare System.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Patients undergoing cardiovascular evaluation in community practices were not evaluated more rapidly than those seen in the VA, though they were more likely to receive initial and repeat diagnostic testing. Adverse events were more common among community-treated patients than those in the VA, suggesting an opportunity to optimize access to care while improving clinical outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54370,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"e041930\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Heart Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.125.041930\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Heart Association","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.125.041930","RegionNum":1,"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

摘要

背景:退伍军人事务部(VA)医疗保健系统维持着美国最大的综合医疗系统,但也为在退伍军人事务部以外的社区设施接受护理的退伍军人提供服务收费保险。我们试图以心血管评估为模型,评估在这两个地点就诊的患者的管理和结果。方法:我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,确定了2020年10月至2024年9月在VA医疗保健系统登记进行心血管评估的患者,并根据完成评估的地点对人群进行分层。主要结局是匹配人群中的主要不良心血管事件(急性冠状动脉综合征/卒中/死亡率)。结果:在235 197例心血管评价咨询中,201 453例在选定地点6个月内完成。咨询和评估之间的时间在各个场所相似(社区,35天[95% CI, 17-65]与VA, 33天[95% CI, 19-53]),诊断测试或治疗干预的延迟相当。与在VA医疗保健系统接受治疗的患者相比,在社区接受治疗的患者更有可能在2年内接受压力测试(43.2%对36.4%,P=1.5×10-46)和冠状动脉造影(23.1%对17.4%,P=2.1×10-51)。尽管如此,与在VA医疗保健系统治疗的患者相比,在社区治疗的患者在2年内的主要不良事件发生率明显更高(17.6%对15.3%,P=5.9×10-10)。结论:在社区实践中接受心血管评估的患者的评估速度并不比在VA中看到的更快,尽管他们更有可能接受初始和重复诊断测试。不良事件在社区治疗的患者中比在退伍军人事务部的患者更常见,这表明有机会在改善临床结果的同时优化获得护理的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Management and Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Cardiovascular Evaluation Across Health Care Systems: Comparison of Community Care and Integrated Veterans Affairs Health Care.

Background: The Veterans Affairs (VA) Healthcare System maintains the largest integrated health system in the United States but also supports fee-for-service insurance for veterans receiving care in community facilities outside the VA. We sought to evaluate the management and outcomes of patients referred for consultation in either venue, using cardiovascular evaluation as a model.

Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study identifying patients enrolled in the VA Healthcare System referred for cardiovascular evaluation from October 2020 through September 2024 and stratified the population based on the venue in which evaluation was completed. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (acute coronary syndromes/stroke/mortality) in a matched population.

Results: Among 235 197 consultations for cardiovascular evaluation, 201 453 were completed in the chosen venue within 6 months. The time between consultation and evaluation was similar across venues (community, 35 days [95% CI, 17-65] versus VA, 33 days [95% CI, 19-53]), with comparable delays to diagnostic testing or therapeutic interventions. Patients receiving care in the community were more likely to undergo stress testing (43.2% versus 36.4%, P=1.5×10-46) and coronary angiography (23.1% versus 17.4%, P=2.1×10-51) within 2 years compared with those treated in the VA Healthcare System. Despite this, patients treated in the community had a significantly higher rate of major adverse events at 2 years (17.6% versus 15.3%, P=5.9×10-10) compared with those treated in the VA Healthcare System.

Conclusions: Patients undergoing cardiovascular evaluation in community practices were not evaluated more rapidly than those seen in the VA, though they were more likely to receive initial and repeat diagnostic testing. Adverse events were more common among community-treated patients than those in the VA, suggesting an opportunity to optimize access to care while improving clinical outcomes.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the American Heart Association
Journal of the American Heart Association CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
1.90%
发文量
1749
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: As an Open Access journal, JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association is rapidly and freely available, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice. JAHA is an authoritative, peer-reviewed Open Access journal focusing on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. JAHA provides a global forum for basic and clinical research and timely reviews on cardiovascular disease and stroke. As an Open Access journal, its content is free on publication to read, download, and share, accelerating the translation of strong science into effective practice.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信