Why report outcomes when process measures will suffice?
Why the study?
Does adherence to a composite score of clinical process indicators improve survival in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome?
Population
7444 patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome enrolled in the CONCORDANCE registry between 2009…
Comparison
Composite score derived from 14… vs Lower adherence to clinical process indicators
Design
Editorial
Authors
Discussion
Loading...
Member takes
Implication
Higher adherence to a composite score of guideline-indicated clinical process measures is associated with improved survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Structured PICO
Does adherence to a composite score of clinical process indicators improve survival in patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome?
P
Population
7444 patients hospitalized with acute coronary syndrome enrolled in the CONCORDANCE registry between 2009 and 2015
I
Intervention
Composite score derived from 14 guideline-indicated Clinical Process Indicators aggregated using an equal weighting method
C
Comparator
Lower adherence to clinical process indicators
O
Outcome
Clinical outcomes (survival/mortality)hard clinical
Higher adherence to a composite score of guideline-indicated clinical process measures is associated with improved survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome.
Cite This Study
Bebb et al. (2016) studied this question.