The role of stroke care infrastructure on the effectiveness of a hub-and-spoke telestroke model in South Carolina.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the relationship between stroke care infrastructure and stroke quality-of-care outcomes at 29 spoke hospitals participating in the Medical University of South Carolina (MUSC) hub-and-spoke telestroke network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Encounter-level data from MUSC's telestroke patient registry were filtered to include encounters during 2015-2022 for patients aged 18 and above with a clinical diagnosis of acute ischemic stroke, and who received intravenous tissue plasminogen activator. Unadjusted and adjusted generalized estimating equations assessed associations between time-related stroke quality-of-care metrics captured during the encounter and the existence of the two components of stroke care infrastructure-stroke coordinators and stroke center certifications-across all hospitals and within hospital subgroups defined by size and rurality. RESULTS: Telestroke encounters at spoke hospitals with stroke coordinators and stroke center certifications were associated with shorter door-to-needle (DTN) times (60.9 min for hospitals with both components and 57.3 min for hospitals with one, vs. 81.2 min for hospitals with neither component, p <.001). Similar patterns were observed for the percentage of encounters with DTN time of ≤60 min (63.8% and 68.9% vs. 32.0%, p <.001) and ≤45 min (34.0% and 38.4% vs. 8.42%, p <.001). Associations were similar for other metrics (e.g., door-to-registration time), and were stronger for smaller (vs. larger) hospitals and rural (vs. urban) hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Stroke coordinators or stroke center certifications may be important for stroke quality of care, especially at spoke hospitals with limited resources or in rural areas.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements.

This Viewpoint discusses Hospital Sepsis Program Core Elements, a set of guidance provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to help hospitals develop multiprofessional programs that monitor and optimize management and outcomes of sepsis.

Minimum reporting standards for process and outcomes assessments for private practice dietitians working in Australian primary care: The Thought Leader Consensus study.

AIM: To identify minimum reporting standards for assessing the processes and outcomes of Australian primary care dietetics practice. METHODS: A sequential, mixed-method, exploratory process with peer-nominated Australian 'thought leaders'. A literature review was undertaken to identify possible standards, followed by semi-structured qualitative interviews with thought leaders. Content analysis was used to identify a comprehensive group of items that could inform evidence-based reporting standards. Two rounds of a modified Delphi survey were conducted with the same thought leaders to seek consensus on the most relevant items. Individual items were analysed for content validity, and those with a rating of excellent item-content validity (index >0.78) were included as evidenced-based standards for primary care practice. RESULTS: Twenty-six thought leaders (response rate: 87%) from all mainland Australian states completed a qualitative interview and two rounds of modified-Delphi consensus surveys. Items were identified and categorised into three domains: business, clinical, and implementation. Content analysis identified 216 items published or used in practice by the thought leaders. After two rounds of consensus review, 97 items (45 business, 33 clinical, and 19 implementation) achieved excellent consensus ratings. Combining these items into a standardised tool, the scale-content validity index average was >0.90, which is considered excellent content validity. CONCLUSIONS: This study has identified minimum reporting standards for evidence-based process and outcome assessments in primary care dietetics practice in Australia. Incorporating such standards into a standardised tool could enable benchmarking across the dietetics workforce and contribute to a broader understanding of the dietetic impact on public health.

Association Between Individual Primary Care Physician Merit-based Incentive Payment System Score and Measures of Process and Patient Outcomes.

Importance: The Medicare Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPS) influences reimbursement for hundreds of thousands of US physicians, but little is known about whether program performance accurately captures the quality of care they provide. Objective: To examine whether primary care physicians' MIPS scores are associated with performance on process and outcome measures. Design, Setting, and Participants: Cross-sectional study of 80 246 US primary care physicians participating in the MIPS program in 2019. Exposures: MIPS score. Main Outcomes and Measures: The association between physician MIPS scores and performance on 5 unadjusted process measures, 6 adjusted outcome measures, and a composite outcome measure. Results: The study population included 3.4 million patients attributed to 80 246 primary care physicians, including 4773 physicians with low MIPS scores (≤30), 6151 physicians with medium MIPS scores (>30-75), and 69 322 physicians with high MIPS scores (>75). Compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly worse mean performance on 3 of 5 process measures: diabetic eye examinations (56.1% vs 63.2%; difference, -7.1 percentage points [95% CI, -8.0 to -6.2]; P < .001), diabetic HbA1c screening (84.6% vs 89.4%; difference, -4.8 percentage points [95% CI, -5.4 to -4.2]; P < .001), and mammography screening (58.2% vs 70.4%; difference, -12.2 percentage points [95% CI, -13.1 to -11.4]; P < .001) but significantly better mean performance on rates of influenza vaccination (78.0% vs 76.8%; difference, 1.2 percentage points [95% CI, 0.0 to 2.5]; P = .045] and tobacco screening (95.0% vs 94.1%; difference, 0.9 percentage points [95% CI, 0.3 to 1.5]; P = .001). MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with risk-adjusted patient outcomes: compared with physicians with high MIPS scores, physicians with low MIPS scores had significantly better mean performance on 1 outcome (307.6 vs 316.4 emergency department visits per 1000 patients; difference, -8.9 [95% CI, -13.7 to -4.1]; P < .001), worse performance on 1 outcome (255.4 vs 225.2 all-cause hospitalizations per 1000 patients; difference, 30.2 [95% CI, 24.8 to 35.7]; P < .001), and did not have significantly different performance on 4 ambulatory care-sensitive admission outcomes. Nineteen percent of physicians with low MIPS scores had composite outcomes performance in the top quintile, while 21% of physicians with high MIPS scores had outcomes in the bottom quintile. Physicians with low MIPS scores but superior outcomes cared for more medically complex and socially vulnerable patients, compared with physicians with low MIPS scores and poor outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among US primary care physicians in 2019, MIPS scores were inconsistently associated with performance on process and outcome measures. These findings suggest that the MIPS program may be ineffective at measuring and incentivizing quality improvement among US physicians.

Leveraging Implementation Science to Achieve Empirical Outcomes.

Organizations are often challenged to demonstrate the evidence of empirical outcomes required for Magnet® application and designation. Theoretically, the application of evidence-based guidelines to the clinical setting leads to empirical outcomes. However, successful integration of guidelines into practice remains problematic. This article explains how organizations can leverage implementation science to promote the effective uptake of best practice standards to achieve the outcomes necessary to improve care and demonstrate Magnet standards.

Quality indicators for dementia and older people nearing the end of life: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Robust quality indicators (QIs) are essential for monitoring and improving the quality of care and learning from good practice. We aimed to identify and assess QIs for the care of older people and people with dementia who are nearing the end of life and recommend QIs for use with routinely collected electronic data across care settings. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted, including five databases and reference chaining. Studies describing the development of QIs for care of older people and those with dementia nearing the end of life were included. QIs were categorized as relating to processes or outcomes, and mapped against six care domains. The psychometric properties (acceptability, evidence base, definition, feasibility, reliability, and validity) of each QI were assessed; QIs were categorized as robust, moderate, or poor. RESULTS: From 12,980 titles and abstracts screened, 37 papers and 976 QIs were included. Process and outcome QIs accounted for 780 (79.7%) and 196 (20.3%) of all QIs, respectively. Many of the QIs concerned physical aspects of care (n = 492, 50.4%), and very few concerned spiritual and cultural aspects of care (n = 19, 1.9%). Three hundred and fifteen (32.3%) QIs were robust and of those 220 were measurable using routinely collected electronic data. The final shortlist of 71 QIs came from seven studies. CONCLUSIONS: Of the numerous QIs developed for care of older adults and those with dementia nearing the end of life, most had poor or moderate psychometric properties or were not designed for use with routinely collected electronic datasets. Infrastructure for data availability, combined with use of robust QIs, is important for enhancing understanding of care provided to this population, identifying unmet needs, and improving service provision.

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes toAssess Healthcare Quality: Toward Better Measurement of Patient-Centered Care in Cardiovascular Disease.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are elicited directly from patients so they can describe their overall health status, including their symptoms, function, and quality of life. While commonly used as end points in clinical trials, PROs can play an important role in routine clinical care, population health management, and as a means for quantifying the quality of patient care. In this review, we propose that PROs be used to improve patient-centered care in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases given their importance to patients and society and their ability to improve doctor- provider communication. Furthermore, given the current variability in patients' health status across different clinics and the fact that PROs can be improved by titrating therapy, we contend that PROs have a key opportunity to serve as measures of healthcare quality.

Safety and Efficacy of Coma Induction Following First-Line Treatment in Status Epilepticus: A 2-Center Study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the safety and efficacy of artificial coma induction to treat status epilepticus (SE) immediately after first-line antiseizure treatment instead of following the recommended approach of first using second-line drugs. METHODS: Clinical and electrophysiologic data of all adult patients treated for SE from 2017 to 2018 in the Swiss academic medical care centers from Basel and Geneva were retrospectively assessed. Primary outcomes were return to premorbid neurologic function and in-hospital death. Secondary outcomes were the emergence of complications during SE, duration of SE, and intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stays. RESULTS: Of 230 patients, 205 received treatment escalation after first-line medication. Of those, 27.3% were directly treated with artificial coma and 72.7% with second-line nonanesthetic antiseizure drugs. Of the latter, 16.6% were subsequently put on artificial coma after failure of second-line treatment. Multivariable analyses revealed increasing odds for coma induction after first-line treatment with younger age, the presence of convulsions, and an increased SE severity as quantified by the Status Epilepticus Severity Score (STESS). While outcomes and complications did not differ compared to patients with treatment escalation according to the guidelines, coma induction after first-line treatment was associated with shorter SE duration and ICU and hospital stays. CONCLUSIONS: Early induction of artificial coma is performed in more than every fourth patient and especially in younger patients presenting with convulsions and more severe SE. Our data demonstrate that this aggressive treatment escalation was not associated with an increase in complications but with shorter duration of SE and ICU and hospital stays. CLASSIFICATION OF EVIDENCE: This study provides Class III evidence that early induction of artificial coma after unsuccessful first-line treatment for SE is associated with shorter duration of SE and ICU and hospital stays compared to the use of a second-line nonanesthetic antiseizure drug instead of or before anesthetics, without an associated increase in complications.

Identifying Core Components of EPA Implementation: A Path to Knowing if a Complex Intervention Is Being Implemented as Intended.

PURPOSE: Competency-based assessment, using entrustable professional activities (EPAs), is rapidly being implemented worldwide without sufficient agreement on the essential elements of EPA-based assessment. The rapidity of implementation has left little time to understand what works in what circumstances and why or why not. The result is the attempted execution of a complex service intervention without a shared mental model for features needed to remain true to implementing an EPA assessment framework as intended. The purpose of this study was to identify the essential core components necessary to maintain integrity in the implementation of this intended intervention. METHOD: A formal consensus-building technique, the Delphi process, was used to identify core components for implementing an EPA-based assessment framework. Twelve EPA experts from the United States, Canada, and the Netherlands participated in this process in February and March 2020. In each Delphi round, participants rated possible core components on a scale from 1 to 6, with 1 reflecting the worst fit and 6 the best fit for EPA-based assessment implementation. Predetermined automatic inclusion and exclusion criteria for candidate core components were set at ≥ 80% of participants assigning a value of 5 or 6 and ≥ 80% assigning a value of 1 or 2, respectively. RESULTS: After 3 rounds, participants prioritized 10 of 19 candidate core components for inclusion: performance prediction, shared local mental model, workplace assessment, high-stakes entrustment decisions, outcomes based, value of the collective, informed clinical competency committee members, construct alignment, qualitative data, and entrustment decision consequences. The study closed after 3 rounds on the basis of the rankings and comments. CONCLUSIONS: Using the core components identified in this study advances efforts to implement an EPA assessment framework intervention as intended, which mitigates the likelihood of making an incorrect judgment that the intervention demonstrates negative results.

Quality Indicators in Vascular Surgery: Toward a National Consensus on 20 Quality Indicators in Belgium.

BACKGROUND: The aim of the present study is to develop relevant quality indicators (QI) to monitor and improve quality of care in vascular surgery. METHODS: The Delphi method was used to incorporate expert opinion to reach consensus on a set of QI. A national expert panel consisting of 52 vascular surgeons was installed on a voluntary basis and endorsed by the Belgian Society of Vascular Surgery and the Flemish Hospital Network KU Leuven. A task force team consisting of 12 surgeons was created to serve as a delegation of the expert panel to discuss and filter the obtained data from the different Delphi rounds. RESULTS: A total of 3 Delphi rounds were needed to reach consensus on a set of 20 QI. Each QI had a content validity index (using a 7-point Likert scale), a feasibility index, and a target level. Twelve outcome indicators and 8 process indicators on several vascular topics were selected: overall for all vascular treatments (n = 1), arterial occlusive disease in general (n = 3), arterial occlusive disease of the lower limbs (n = 4), arterial occlusive disease of the carotid arteries (n = 5), arterial aneurysm disease in general (n = 2), arterial aneurysm disease with endovascular treatment (n = 1), and venous disease (n = 4). CONCLUSIONS: This resulted in the successful identification of 20 validated and relevant vascular QI, focusing on arterial occlusive disease, arterial aneurysm disease, and venous disease. The next step in this project will be the performance of an implementation study.

A study on the management of needle-stick and sharps injuries based on total quality management in a tertiary hospital in western China.

OBJECTIVE: Based on the concept of total quality management, the practice of managing needle-stick and sharps injuries was analyzed to improve nursing quality. METHODS: Using total quality management, an improvement plan was completed. Standard operating procedures for infusion therapy and monitoring of the circulatory system were made to reduce the utilization of winged metal needles and the frequency of needle-stick injuries. From 2015 to 2018, four cross-sectional surveys were conducted on the use of winged metal needles, peripheral intravenous catheters, central venous catheters, peripherally inserted central catheters, and implantable venous access ports and the status of needle-stick and sharps injuries in our hospital during the 4 years. RESULTS: Four cross-sectional surveys showed that the percentage of winged metal needle utilization decreased significantly from 13% to 0.5%, and that of peripheral intravenous catheters increased from 77% to 87%. Zero tolerance of winged metal needles increased from 33 to 60 nursing units, an improvement rate of 81.82%. The number of needle-stick injuries decreased from 71 to 21, a decrease of 70.42%. Needle-stick injuries occurred mainly during waste disposal (34.71%) and needle withdrawal (18.18%) and when recapping needles (9.92%). CONCLUSION: Based on total quality management, the implementation of zero tolerance of winged metal needles is much better. The use of winged metal needles and the incidence of needle-stick injuries are reduced. Total quality management is of great clinical value in preventing needle-stick injuries.

Contemporary Endovascular Outcomes for Critical Limb Ischemia Are Still Failing to Meet Society for Vascular Surgery Objective Performance Goals.

OBJECTIVES: The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) created Objective Performance Goals (OPGs) for critical limb ischemia (CLI) in 2009. It was previously shown that endovascular therapy for CLI was not meeting these benchmarks. The OPG for all peripheral interventions is <8% for major adverse cardiac events (MACE), <8% for major adverse limb events (MALE), and <3% for major amputation. The goal of this study is to evaluate if outcomes have improved for CLI in recent years, specifically 2015-2018. METHODS: The Targeted Vascular Module from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) was queried to identify patients who underwent endovascular intervention for critical limb ischemia from 2011-2018. Cohorts were divided into 2011-2014 and 2015-2018. Primary 30-day outcomes were MACE, MALE, and major amputation. Univariate analyses were performed using the Fisher's exact test and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. Multivariate analysis comparing groups was performed using inverse probability weights and trend over time analysis was performed using logistic regression with year of intervention as a continuous variable. RESULTS: From 2011 to 2018, 7,168 patients underwent an endovascular intervention for CLI. 28% were classified as "OPG high anatomic risk," and 17% were classified as "OPG high clinical risk." The 2015-2018 cohort vs. the 2011-14 cohort experienced MACE in 3.3% vs. 2.7% (p = .23), MALE in 9.1% vs. 8.9% (p = 0.83), and amputation in 4.0% vs. 4.2% (p = 0.71). When only high anatomic risk patients were considered (n = 1988), MACE was experienced in 2.4% vs. 2.2% (p = 0.87), MALE by 9.5% vs. 10.6% (p = 0.47) and amputation by 5.1% vs. 6.0% (p = 0.40). When only high clinical risk patients were considered (n = 1224), MACE was experienced in 5.2% vs. 3.9% (p = 0.33), MALE by 8.0% vs. 7.4% (p = 0.74) and amputation by 3.9% vs. 3.7% (p = 0.88). Comparing 2015-2018 to the reference 2011-2014, MALE adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 0.99, 95% CI [0.83-1.18], MACE AOR = 1.19 95% CI [0.88-1.60], and major amputation AOR = 0.91 95% CI [0.70-1.17]. There were no decreases in the trend over time for MALE (AOR per year 0.97, CI [.94-1.02], major amputation (AOR per year: 0.97, CI [0.91-1.03], nor for MACE (AOR per year: 1.05, CI [.98-1.13]). CONCLUSION: Outcomes following endovascular interventions for CLI continue to underperform when compared to OPG benchmarks for MALE and amputations. There is no decrease over time for these target outcomes. Target MACE events remain acceptable despite the increasing clinical complexity of patients being treated.

Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation: A national quality improvement project.

Cannulation is essential for haemodialysis with arteriovenous access, but also damages the arteriovenous access making it prone to failure, is associated with complications and affects patients' experiences of haemodialysis. Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation is a national UK quality improvement project, designed to improve cannulation practice in the United Kingdom, ensuring it reflects current needling recommendations. It uses a simple quality improvement method, the Model for Improvement, to structure improvement to cannulation practice. It assists units in the practical implementation of the British Renal Society and Vascular Access Society of Britain and Ireland needling recommendations, ensuring actual cannulation practice reflects what is defined as best practice in cannulation. An eLearning package and awareness materials have been developed, to assist units in changing their cannulation practice. The Kidney Quality Improvement Partnership provides a structure for Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation that promotes development and dissemination. It is hoped that Managing Access by Generating Improvements in Cannulation will raise an understanding about the cannulation of arteriovenous access and change behaviours and beliefs around correct cannulation practice, to ensure longevity of this lifeline.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Vascular Surgery Practice Guidelines during COVID-19 Pandemic in a Setting of High Work Volume Against Limited Resources: Perspective of a Developing Country.

BACKGROUND: The situation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in the Indian subcontinent is worsening. In Bangladesh, rate of new infection has been on the rise despite limited testing facility. Constraint of resources in the health care sector makes the fight against COVID-19 more challenging for a developing country like Bangladesh. Vascular surgeons find themselves in a precarious situation while delivering professional services during this crisis. With the limited number of dedicated vascular surgeons in Bangladesh, it is important to safeguard these professionals without compromising emergency vascular care services in the long term. To this end, we at the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka, have developed a working guideline for our vascular surgeons to follow during the COVID-19 pandemic. The guideline takes into account high vascular work volume against limited resources in the country. METHODS: A total of 307 emergency vascular patients were dealt with in the first 4 COVID-19 months (March through June 2020) according to the working guideline, and the results were compared with the 4 pre-COVID-19 months. Vascular trauma, dialysis access complications, and chronic limb-threatening ischemia formed the main bulk of the patient population. Vascular health care workers were regularly screened for COVID-19 infection. RESULTS: There was a 38% decrease in the number of patients in the COVID-19 period. Treatment outcome in COVID-19 months were comparable with that in the pre-COVID-19 months except that limb loss in the chronic limb-threatening ischemia patients was higher. COVID-19 infection among the vascular health care professionals was low. CONCLUSIONS: Vascular surgery practice guidelines customized for the high work volume and limited resources of the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Hospital, Dhaka were effective in delivering emergency care during COVID-19 pandemic, ensuring safety of the caregivers. Despite the fact that similar guidelines exist in different parts of the world, we believe that the present one is still relevant on the premises of a deepening COVID-19 crisis in a developing country like Bangladesh.

Association Between Hospital Debriefing Practices With Adherence to Resuscitation Process Measures and Outcomes for In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest.

Background Identifying actionable resuscitation practices that vary across hospitals could improve adherence to process measures or outcomes after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA). We sought to examine whether hospital debriefing frequency after IHCA varies across hospitals and whether hospitals which routinely perform debriefing have higher rates of process-of-care compliance or survival. Methods We conducted a nationwide survey of hospital resuscitation practices in April of 2018, which were then linked to data from the Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation national registry for IHCA. Hospitals were categorized according to their reported frequency of debriefing immediately after IHCA; rarely (0%-20% of all IHCA cases), occasionally (21%-80%), and frequently (81%-100%). Hospital-level rates of timely defibrillation (≤2 minutes), epinephrine administration (≤5 minutes), survival to discharge, return of spontaneous circulation, and neurologically intact survival were comparted for patients with IHCA from 2015 to 2017. Results Overall, there were 193 hospitals comprising 44 477 IHCA events. Mean patient age was 65±16, 41% were females, and 68% were of White race. Across hospitals, 84 (43.5%) rarely performed debriefings immediately after an IHCA, 82 (42.5%) performed debriefing sessions occasionally, and 27 (14.0%) performed debriefing frequently. There was no association between higher reported debriefing frequency and hospital rates of timely defibrillation and epinephrine administration. Mean hospital rates of risk-standardized survival to discharge were similar across debriefing frequency groups (rarely 25.6%; occasionally 26.0%; frequently 25.2%, P=0.72), as were hospital rates of risk-adjusted return of spontaneous circulation (rarely 72.2%; occasionally 73.0%; frequently 70.0%, P=0.06) and neurologically intact survival (rarely 21.9%, occasionally 22.2%, frequently 21.1%, P=0.75). Conclusions In a large contemporary nationwide quality improvement registry, hospitals varied widely in how often they conducted debriefings immediately after IHCA. However, hospital debriefing frequency was not associated with better adherence to timely delivery of epinephrine or defibrillation or higher rates of IHCA survival.

Advancing the Culture of Patient Safety and Quality Improvement.

The American health care system has many great successes, but there continue to be opportunities for improving quality, access, and cost. The fee-for-service health care paradigm is shifting toward value-based care and will require accountability around quality assurance and cost reduction. As a result, many health care entities are rallying health care providers, administrators, regulators, and patients around a national imperative to create a culture of safety and develop systems of care to improve health care quality. However, the culture of patient safety and quality requires rigorous assessment of outcomes, and while numerous data collection and decision support tools are available to assist in quality assessment and performance improvement, the public reporting of this data can be confusing to patients and physicians alike and result in unintended negative consequences. This review explores the aims of health care reform, the national efforts to create a culture of quality and safety, the principles of quality improvement, and how these principles can be applied to patient care and medical practice.

Paying for Performance Improvement in Quality and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Care: Challenges and Prospects.

Over the past two decades, Medicare and other payers have been looking at ways to base payment for cardiovascular care on the quality and outcomes of care delivered. Public reporting of hospital performance on a series of quality measures began in 2004 with basic processes of care such as aspirin use and influenza vaccination, and it expanded in later years to include outcomes such as mortality and readmission rates. Following the passage of the Affordable Care Act in March 2010, Medicare and other payers moved forward with pay-for-performance programs, more commonly referred to as value-based purchasing (VBP) programs. These programs are largely based on an underlying fee-for-service payment infrastructure and give hospitals and clinicians bonuses or penalties based on their performance. Another new payment mechanism, called alternative payment models (APMs), aims to move towards episode-based or global payments to improve quality and efficiency. The two most relevant APMs for cardiovascular care include Accountable Care Organizations and bundled payments. Both VBP programs and APMs have challenges related to program efficacy, accuracy, and equity. In fact, despite over a decade of progress in measuring and incentivizing high-quality care delivery within cardiology, major limitations remain. Many of the programs have had little benefit in terms of clinical outcomes yet have led to marked administrative burden for participants. However, there are several encouraging prospects to aid the successful implementation of value-based high-quality cardiovascular care, such as more sophisticated data science to improve risk adjustment and flexible electronic health records to decrease administrative burden. Furthermore, payment models designed specifically for cardiovascular care could incentivize innovative care delivery models that could improve quality and outcomes for patients. This review provides an overview of current efforts, largely at the federal level, to pay for high-quality cardiovascular care and discusses the challenges and prospects related to doing so.

The Role of National Registries in Improving Quality of Care and Outcomes for Cardiovascular Disease.

Cardiovascular registries play an integral role in providing real-world data on a number of cardiovascular conditions and allowing measurement of quality metrics across a large cohort of patients. Over the past 35 years, the number of cardiovascular registries has skyrocketed, and their use will only continue to grow as data on novel procedures and devices will need to be collected and analyzed. The American College of Cardiology and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Transcatheter Valve Therapy Registry is just one example of a modern registry that plays a crucial role in collecting data on patients undergoing transcatheter valvular procedures. Through public reporting registries, data can be shared on a hospital and provider level for many quality performance measures. There remains much work to be done on allowing automated data extraction from the electronic medical record directly into registries. No matter how sophisticated and complete a registry is, it can never overcome the problem of treatment selection bias that is inherent in observational data. This review discusses the growth, benefits, and limitations of national registries and their role in developing evidence for best clinical practice, measuring outcomes, providing feedback to clinicians, and improving quality of care.