There is wide variability in cardiovascular rehabilitation program quality overall and between sites, highlighting a need for targeted quality improvement initiatives, particularly regarding wait times and metabolic assessments.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Variability signals inconsistent CR care; leaves open need for standardization and prospective QI outcome trials.
PURPOSE: Cardiac care, including cardiovascular rehabilitation (CR), is most effective if it is high-quality. The aim of this study was to describe CR quality, using the recently developed Canadian Cardiovascular Society CR quality indicators (QIs). Difference in quality between CR sites was also assessed. METHODS: Secondary analysis was conducted on an observational, prospective, multisite CR program evaluation cohort. A convenience sample of patients from 1 of 3 CR programs was approached at their first CR visit, and consenting participants completed a survey. Clinical data were extracted from charts pre- and postprogram. Of the 30 CR QIs, 21 (70.0%) were assessable: 10 process, 9 outcome, and 2 structure QIs. RESULTS: Of 411 consenting patients, 209 (53.0%) completed CR. The greatest quality was observed for assessment of blood pressure (98.1%), communication with primary health care at CR discharge (94.2%), and patient enrollment (94.0%). The lowest quality was observed for wait time from hospital discharge (9.2%), assessments of blood glucose (42.1%), and lipid control (53.0%). Of the 7 QIs that had an established benchmark, quality for 2 (28.6%) was above the benchmark (particularly assessment of blood pressure). Significant between-site differences were observed in 11 (64.7%) QIs. The magnitude of quality differences between sites was largest for assessment of lipid control (72.6%), assessment of blood glucose control (69.0%), and wait time in median days from referral to enrollment (30.6 days). CONCLUSION: There is wide variability in CR program quality, both overall and between CR sites. Quality improvement in particular aspects of CR care is required.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Somanader et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: