Key result
Among 32 Connecticut hospitals, 25 used combinations of physician champions, multidisciplinary teams, or critical pathways to improve AMI care, and 26 found the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project valuable.
Why the study?
The impact of the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project on quality improvement activities for acute myocardial infarction care at local hospitals was not well characterized.
Cross-Sectional (n=32)
Yes
Externally sponsored projects like the CCP provide valuable benchmark data and act as catalysts for quality improvement in AMI care across hospitals with variable resources.
May support CCP benchmarks for AMI quality initiatives; leaves open whether strategies improve outcomes in broader settings.
The objective of this study was to investigate what happened to improve the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) at all 32 nonfederal hospitals in Connecticut and to assess the impact of the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project (CCP) on quality improvement (QI) activities for AMI. We performed a questionnaire study with secondary analyses using the CCP database. On-site interviews were conducted with QI directors at all 32 Connecticut nonfederal hospitals that participated in the Health Care Financing Administration's Cooperative Cardiovascular Project (CCP) in 1992-93 and 1995. The interviews sought information about the makeup of QI departments, specific approaches used to improve the care of patients with AMI, and the perceived value of the CCP to each individual hospital. Results showed that the number of full-time equivalents (FTEs) and FTEs per beds employed in QI departments ranged from 1 to 30 and from 0.4 to 7.9, respectively, with a registered nurse most often serving as the department head (27/32). Over half of the departments (17/32) had additional responsibilities. The majority (25/32) used some combination of physician champions, multidisciplinary QI teams, standing orders, or critical pathways to effect change in AMI care. Finally, 26 of the 32 hospitals believed the CCP was valuable because it provided credible benchmark data, a catalyst for change, or a specific focus on processes of care needing improvement in AMI. Despite great variability in institutional resources, all 32 hospitals used a similar combination of QI approaches to effect change in AMI care. However, there is variable scientific evidence supporting these approaches. Externally sponsored projects such as the CCP appear to play a useful role for individual hospitals. Defining the optimal methods of QI is difficult given that hospitals are using complex combinations of nonstandardized improvement interventions.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Holmboe et al. (2000) conducted a cross-sectional in Acute myocardial infarction (n=32). Quality improvement activities and the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project was evaluated on Makeup of QI departments, specific approaches used to improve AMI care, and perceived value of the CCP. Among 32 Connecticut hospitals, 25 used combinations of physician champions, multidisciplinary teams, or critical pathways to improve AMI care, and 26 found the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project valuable.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: