Key result
Exclusion rates from AMI quality measures varied substantially among hospitals (17.8% to 90.1%), with measures often excluding older, higher-risk populations with more comorbidities.
Observational (n=163,144)
Yes
National Hospital Quality Measures for AMI often exclude high-risk populations, leading to small sample sizes and potential misrepresentation of hospital quality.
AMI quality measures may distort hospital performance by excluding high-risk patients; leaves open whether inclusive metrics better reflect care quality.
BACKGROUND: National Hospital Quality Measures (NHQM) should accurately reflect quality of care, as they increasingly impact reimbursement and reputation. However, similar to risk adjustment of outcomes measures, NHQM process measures pose unique methodological concerns, including lack of representativeness of the final denominator population after exclusions. This study determines population size and characteristics for each acute myocardial infarction (AMI) measure, reasons for exclusion from the measures, and variation in exclusion rates among hospitals. METHODS AND RESULTS: 163 144 discharges from 172 University HealthSystem Consortium hospitals between 2008-Q4 and 2013-Q3 were examined, including characteristics and propensity scores of included and excluded groups. Measure exclusions ranged from 17.8% (discharge aspirin) to 90.1% (percutaneous coronary intervention, PCI, within 90 min), with substantial variation across hospitals. Median annual denominator size (IQR) for PCI within 90 min was 28 (20, 44) at major teaching hospitals, versus 10 (0, 25) at non-teaching hospitals. Patients most likely to be excluded (in the 10th vs 1st propensity decile) were older (mean age (SD) of 78.1 (10.8) vs 50.3 (8.6) years), more likely to have Medicare (90.5% vs 0.9%), had more documented comorbidities (15.6 (4.6) vs 6.2 (2.5) hierarchical clinical condition categories) and higher admission mortality risk (Major or Extreme 80.9% vs 7.3%, respectively), and experienced higher inpatient mortality (10.0% vs 1.6%). CONCLUSIONS: Exclusion from AMI measures varied substantially among hospitals, sample sizes were very small for some measures (PCI and ACE inhibitor measures) and measures often excluded high-risk populations. This has implications for the representativeness and comparability of the measures and provides insight for future measure development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruckel et al. (2016) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n=163,144). National Hospital Quality Measures (NHQM) for AMI was evaluated on Population size, characteristics, reasons for exclusion, and variation in exclusion rates for AMI measures. Exclusion rates from AMI quality measures varied substantially among hospitals (17.8% to 90.1%), with measures often excluding older, higher-risk populations with more comorbidities.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: