ABSTRACT
Importance: Adoption of guideline-directed medical therapy for patients with heart failure is variable. Interventions to improve guideline-directed medical therapy have failed to consistently achieve target metrics, and limited data exist to inform efforts to improve heart failure quality of care. Objective: To evaluate the effect of a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention compared with usual care on heart failure outcomes and care. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cluster randomized clinical trial was conducted at 161 US hospitals and included 5647 patients (2675 intervention vs 2972 usual care) followed up after a hospital discharge for acute heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). The trial was performed from 2017 to 2020, and the date of final follow-up was August 31, 2020. Interventions: Hospitals (n = 82) randomized to a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention received regular education of clinicians by a trained group of heart failure and quality improvement experts and audit and feedback on heart failure process measures (eg, use of guideline-directed medical therapy for HFrEF) and outcomes. Hospitals (n = 79) randomized to usual care received access to a generalized heart failure education website. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were a composite of first heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality and change in an opportunity-based composite score for heart failure quality (percentage of recommendations followed). Results: Among 5647 patients (mean age, 63 years; 33% women; 38% Black; 87% chronic heart failure; 49% recent heart failure hospitalization), vital status was known for 5636 (99.8%). Heart failure rehospitalization or all-cause mortality occurred in 38.6% in the intervention group vs 39.2% in usual care (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.81 to 1.05). The baseline quality-of-care score was 42.1% vs 45.5%, respectively, and the change from baseline to follow-up was 2.3% vs -1.0% (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, -0.8% to 7.3%]), with no significant difference between the 2 groups in the odds of achieving a higher composite quality score at last follow-up (adjusted odds ratio, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.93 to 1.21]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with HFrEF in hospitals randomized to a hospital and postdischarge quality improvement intervention vs usual care, there was no significant difference in time to first heart failure rehospitalization or death, or in change in a composite heart failure quality-of-care score. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03035474.
Subject(s)
Heart Failure/therapy , Quality Improvement , Aftercare , Aged , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Heart Failure/mortality , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Hospitalization , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Patient Readmission/statistics & numerical data , Quality Indicators, Health Care , Stroke Volume , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Many therapies have been shown to improve outcomes for patients with heart failure (HF) in controlled settings, but there are limited data available to inform best practices for hospital and post-discharge quality improvement initiatives. The CONNECT-HF study is a prospective, cluster-randomized trial of 161 hospitals in the United States with a 2×2 factorial design. The study is designed to assess the effect of a hospital and post-discharge quality improvement intervention compared with usual care (primary objective) on HF outcomes and quality-of-care, as well as to evaluate the effect of hospitals implementing a patient-level digital intervention compared with usual care (secondary objective). The hospital and post-discharge intervention includes audit and feedback on HF clinical process measures and outcomes for patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) paired with education to sites and clinicians by a trained, nationally representative group of HF and quality improvement experts. The patient-level digital intervention is an optional ancillary study and includes a mobile application and behavioral tools that are intended to facilitate improved use of guideline-directed recommendations for self-monitoring and self-management of activity and medications for HFrEF. The effects of the interventions will be measured through an opportunity-based composite score on quality and time-to-first HF readmission or death among patients with HFrEF who present to study hospitals with acute HF and who consent to participate. The CONNECT-HF study is evaluating approaches for implementing HF guideline recommendations into practice and is one of the largest HF implementation science trials performed to date.
Subject(s)
Aftercare/standards , Heart Failure/therapy , Hospitalization , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Quality Improvement , Quality of Health Care , Heart Failure/mortality , Heart Failure/physiopathology , Humans , Mobile Applications , Patient Compliance , Prospective Studies , Research Design , Self Care/methods , Stroke Volume/physiology , United StatesABSTRACT
Advancements in cardiovascular (CV) disease management are notable, yet health inequities prevail, associated with increased morbidity and mortality noted among non-Hispanic African Americans in the United States. The 2002 Institute of Medicine Report revealed ongoing racial and ethnic health care disparities, spearheading a deeper understanding of the social determinants of health and systemic racism to develop strategies for CV health equity (HE). This article outlines the strategic HE approach of the American College of Cardiology, comprising 6 strategic equity domains: workforce pathway inclusivity, health care, data, science, and tools; education and training; membership, partnership, and collaboration; advocacy and policy; and clinical trial diversity. The American College of Cardiology's Health Equity Task Force champions the improvement of patients' lived experiences, population health, and clinician well-being while reducing health care costs-the Quadruple Aim of Health Equity. Thus, we examine multifaceted HE interventions and provide evidence for scalable real-world interventions to promote equitable CV care.
ABSTRACT
Observation Services (OS) was founded by emergency physicians in an attempt to manage "boarding" issues faced by emergency departments throughout the United States. As a result, OS have proven to be an effective strategy in reducing costs and decreasing lengths of stay while improving patient outcomes. When OS are appropriately leveraged for maximum efficiency, patients presenting to emergency departments with common disease processes can be effectively treated in a timely manner. A well-structured observation program will help hospitals reduce the number of inappropriate, costly inpatient admissions while avoiding the potential of inappropriate discharges. Observation medicine is a complicated multidimensional issue that has generated much confusion. This service is designed to provide the best possible patient care in a value-based purchasing environment where quality, cost, and patient satisfaction must continually be addressed. Observation medicine is a service not a status. Therefore, patients are admitted to the service as outpatients no matter whether they are placed in a virtual or dedicated observation unit. The key to a successful observation program is to determine how to maximize efficiencies. This white paper provides the reader with the foundational guidance for observational services. It defines how to set up an observational service program, which diagnoses are most appropriate for admission, and what the future holds. The goal is to help care providers from any hospital deliver the most appropriate level of treatment, to the most appropriate patient, in the most appropriate location while controlling costs.