Missed opportunities in the primary care management of early acute ischemic heart disease.

BACKGROUND: The role of primary care clinicians (physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) in evaluating acute cardiac ischemia is not well documented in office-based settings. Decision aids developed in the emergency department and other settings may help identify missed opportunities to intervene in symptomatic outpatients before hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of patients with no history of heart disease in a multisite group practice. Cases ("missed opportunities") were outpatients evaluated by primary care clinicians for chest pain or other anginal equivalents within 30 days of hospitalization for acute myocardial infarction and not referred for immediate hospital care (n = 106). We identified 3 control patients matched to each case (n = 318) using initial symptom and encounter date. We assessed the ability of several coronary risk prediction tools to identify missed opportunities. RESULTS: We identified 966 acute myocardial infarction hospital admissions among nearly 250,000 adults, including 261 (27.0%) with qualifying office visits in the preceding 30 days and 106 (11.0%) who were not directly referred for hospital care (cases). Chest pain (50.0%) and dyspnea (26.4%) were present in most of these cases. A Framingham risk score of 10% or greater was associated with missed opportunities (odds ratio, 19.5; 95% confidence interval, 9.3-40.6). Increased scores using the Diamond and Forrester probability and the Goldman prediction tool were also associated with missed opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care clinicians play an important role in the management of acute cardiac ischemia. The Framingham risk score can help identify missed opportunities that warrant more intensive evaluation.

Prediction of missed myocardial infarction among symptomatic outpatients without coronary heart disease.

BACKGROUND: Missed diagnoses of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) in the ambulatory setting can cause patient suffering and malpractice litigation. Multiple algorithms have been developed to detect the presence of coronary heart disease (CHD) or acute coronary ischemia. METHODS: We performed a case-control study of patients with no prior history of CHD presenting to outpatient practices with potential cardiac ischemia. Malpractice claims files were used to identify 18 cases of patients with missed AMIs. For each case, we identified 3 control patients who had office visits for chest pain during the same month and assessed the association of 4 different prediction tools with missed AMI. RESULTS: The 18 cases of missed AMI had a 39% 1-month mortality rate. Cases were more likely than controls to be men (67% vs 26%, P = .001), to be smokers (88% vs 39%, P < .001), and to have low HDL cholesterol (39 mg/dL vs 59 mg/dL, P < .001) and elevated total cholesterol (236 mg/dL vs 213 mg/dL, P = .01). A Framingham risk score predicting a 10-year risk of CHD > or =10% and a positive score using the Goldman risk predictor were associated with an increased risk of missed AMI (odds ratio 5.7, 95% CI 1.8-18.4 for Framingham risk score; odds ratio 7.2, 95% CI 1.4-36.8 for Goldman risk predictor). CONCLUSIONS: Among ambulatory patients with possible cardiac ischemia and no prior CHD, multiple algorithms may be useful for improvement of risk stratification.

Aligning quality and payment for heart failure care: defining the challenges.

Hospitals may not support programs that improve the quality of care delivered to heart failure patients because these programs lower readmission rates and empty beds, and therefore further diminish already-declining revenues. A conflict between the highest quality of care and financial solvency does not serve the interests of patients, physicians, hospitals, or payers. In principle, resolution of this conflict is simple: reimbursement systems should reward higher quality care. In practice, resolving the conflict is not simple. A recent roundtable discussion sponsored by the Heart Failure Society of America identified 4 major challenges to the design and implementation of reimbursement schemes that promote higher quality care for heart failure: defining quality, accounting for differences in disease severity, crafting novel payment mechanisms, and overcoming professional parochialism. This article describes each of these challenges in turn.