Key result
Structured audit and feedback identifies critical AMI care quality indicators to guide targeted improvement.
Why the study?
The study evaluated whether a structured audit and feedback intervention improves the appropriateness and timeliness of emergency care for acute myocardial infarction compared with web-based regional publication of indicators.
Does a structured audit and feedback intervention improve the appropriateness and timeliness of emergency healthcare for acute myocardial infarction compared to web-based regional publication of indicators?
Observational (n=16)
Yes
Does a structured audit and feedback intervention improve the appropriateness and timeliness of emergency healthcare for acute myocardial infarction compared to web-based regional publication of indicators?
A structured audit and feedback intervention in Italian hospitals successfully identified critical issues in emergency care for AMI, facilitating targeted quality improvement actions.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports targeted AMI quality improvements via audit and feedback; extends RCT evidence favoring active over passive indicator dissemination.
Within the EASY-NET network program (NET-2016-02364191), Work Package 1 Lazio evaluates the effectiveness of a structured audit and feedback (A&F) intervention compared with the web-based regional periodic publication of indicators in improving the appropriateness and timeliness of emergency healthcare for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This work describes the A&F methodology and presents the results of the first feedback delivered. The intervention involves sending periodic reports via e-mail to participating hospitals. The feedback reports include a set of volume and quality (process and outcome) indicators, calculated by facility through the health information system of the Lazio Region and compared with regional mean, target values and values calculated for hospitals with similar volumes of activity. Health managers and clinicians of each participating hospital represent the "feedback recipients". They are invited to organize clinical and organizational audit meetings to identify possible critical issues in the care pathway and define, where necessary, improvement actions. A total of 16 facilities are involved. Twelve facilities present high volumes in all volume indicators, while three facilities present low volumes for each indicator. Concerning the quality indicators, four facilities do not present critical indicators or had average results, three facilities do not present critical indicators but show average results in at least one of the indicators and six facilities present a critical value for at least one of the indicators. The first report highlighted some critical issues in some facilities on several indicators. During the audit meetings, each facility analyzes these issues, defining appropriate improvement actions. The outcome of these actions will be monitored through subsequent reporting to support the continuous care quality improvement process.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Angelici et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) (n=16). Structured audit and feedback (A&F) vs. Web-based regional periodic publication of indicators was evaluated on Appropriateness and timeliness of emergency healthcare for acute myocardial infarction. A structured audit and feedback intervention across 16 facilities identified critical quality indicators in 6 facilities for acute myocardial infarction care, guiding targeted improvement actions.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: