Disease Management & Health Outcomes

, Volume 11, Issue 12, pp 801–816 | Cite as

Determinants of Quality of In-Hospital Care for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

  • Ian A. Scott
Review Article


Acute coronary syndromes (ACS) comprising acute myocardial infarction and unstable angina pectoris are prevalent causes for patient admission to hospital. Research has disclosed variations in the quality of in-hospital care of such patients as measured by levels of adherence to evidence-based management recommendations. This review aimed to identify: (i) the patient characteristics and system of care factors which reliably predict an increased likelihood of suboptimal care; and (ii) effective strategies for optimizing care.

A systematic review was undertaken of studies that evaluated the relationship between predictor-of-quality variables (patient or hospital characteristic or quality improvement intervention [QII]) and care processes and/or outcomes.

With regards to patient characteristics, increasing age and the co-existence of diabetes mellitus, renal disease, chronic obstructive lung disease, major mental health disorders, and significant co-morbidity burden were associated with underuse of effective therapies, as was the presence of congestive heart failure as a complication of ACS and the absence of chest pain as presenting symptom. Studies of sex-, race- or socioeconomically-related differences in care yielded inconsistent results.

In terms of system of care factors, risk-adjusted studies suggested that there was no relationship between quality of care and the specialty of the admitting clinician (cardiologist versus non-cardiologist). However, the admission to tertiary, urban or high volume hospitals predicted higher-quality care compared with admissions to non-tertiary, rural, or low volume hospitals, while the presence or absence of on-site invasive facilities was not a reliable predictor. No consistent differences in quality were noted between managed care and fee-for-service arrangements, or between Veterans Health Administration and Medicare funding systems.

The determination of effectiveness of QIIs is constrained by a paucity of rigorous evidence. The most effective interventions appear to be multifaceted, guideline-based quality improvement programs led by clinician leaders that target multiple key care processes and include repeated performance feedback. Single interventions that appear useful include clinical pathways in emergency departments and coronary care units, nurse-mediated thrombolysis protocols, clinical pharmacist-mediated academic detailing, checklist-based patient feedback to clinicians, and system re-design based on process analysis. The impact on quality of nationally released practice guidelines published by professional organizations was minimal in the absence of localized methods of implementation.

Certain patient and system of care factors predispose patients to receive suboptimal care which, if known to the individual clinician, allows for greater vigilance of personal practice when he or she is confronted with such circumstances. For professional groups and health institutions, this information when combined with knowledge of effective strategies for improving care provides opportunities for optimizing both clinical care and patient outcomes.


Aspirin Acute Coronary Syndrome Acute Myocardial Infarction Acute Coronary Syndrome Patient Percutaneous Coronary Intervention 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author has provided no information on sources of funding. He has no conflicts of interest directly relevant to the content of this review. The author wishes to thank Dr Victor Chen for assistance in searching the literature on quality improvement interventions.


  1. 1.
    Meier M, Al-Badr W, Cooper J, et al. The new definition of myocardial infarction: diagnostic and prognostic implications in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1585–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Heart Association. Heart disease and stroke statistics — 2003 update. Dallas (TX): American Heart Association, 2002Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Law M, Watt H, Wald N. The underlying risk of death after myocardial infarction in the absence of treatment. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 2405–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Montague T, Montague P, Barnes M, et al. Acute myocardial infarction in Canada: new epidemiologic insights on incidence, therapy and risk. J Thromb Thrombolysis 1996; 3: 101–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Heidenreich P, McClellan M. Trends in treatment and outcomes for acute myocardial infarction: 1975–1995. Am J Med 2001; 110: 165–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pell J, Simpson E, Rodger J, et al. Impact of changing diagnostic criteria on incidence, management, and outcome of acute myocardial infarction: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2003; 326: 134–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Scott I, Denaro C, Bennett C, et al. Quality of care of patients hospitalised with acute coronary syndromes. Intern Med J 2002; 32: 502–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Rathore S, Mehta R, Wang Y, et al. Effects of age on the quality of care provided to older patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 2003; 114: 307–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Alter D, Naylor C, Austin P, et al. Biology or bias: practice patterns and long-term outcomes for men and women with acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 39: 1909–16PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Schneider E, Zaslavsky A, Epstein A. Racial disparities in the quality of care for enrollees in medicare managed care. JAMA 2002; 287: 1288–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Barakat K, Stevenson S, Wilkinson P, et al. Socioeconomic differentials in recurrent ischaemia and mortality after myocardial infarction. Heart 2001; 85: 390–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehta R, Ruane T, McCarger P, et al. The treatment of elderly diabetic patients with acute myocardial infarction: insight from Michigan’s Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 1301–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Shlipak M, Heidenreich P, Noguchi H, et al. Association of renal insufficiency with treatment and outcomes after myocardial infarction in elderly patients. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 555–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ayanian J, Guadagnoli E, McNeil B, et al. Treatment and outcomes of acute myocardial infarction among patients of cardiologists and generalist physicians. Arch Intern Med 1997; 157: 2570–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Chen J, Radford M, Wang Y, et al. Do “America’s Best Hospitals” perform better for acute myocardial infarction? N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 286–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sheikh K, Bullock C. Urban-rural differences in the quality of care for medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 737–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Soumerai S, McLaughlin T, Gurwitz J, et al. Timeliness and quality of care for elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction under health maintenance organisations vs fee-for-service insurance. Arch Intern Med 1999; 27: 2013–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Spertus J, Radford M, Every N, et al. Challenges and opportunities in quantifying the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: summary from the Acute Myocardial Infarction Working Group of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology First Scientific Forum on Quality of Care and Outcomes Research in Cardiovascular Disease and Stroke. Circulation 2003; 107: 1681–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marciniak T, Ellerbeck E, Radford J, et al. Improving the quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA 1998; 279: 1351–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Braunwald E, Antman E, Beasley J, et al. ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients with Unstable Angina). Circulation 2002; 106: 1893–900PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aroney C, Boyden A, Jelinek M, et al. Management of unstable angina guidelines — 2000. Med J Aust 2000; 173 Suppl.: S65–88Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yusuf S, Cairns JA, Camm JA, et al., editors. Evidenced-based Cardiology. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Books, 2002Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lee K, Woodlief L, Topol E, et al. Predictors of 30-day mortality in the era of reperfusion for acute myocardial infarction: results from an international trial of 41,021 patients. GUSTO-1 Investigators. Circulation 1995; 91: 1659–68PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kaplan R, Heckbert S, Furberg C, et al. Predictors of subsequent coronary events, stroke, and death among survivors of first hospitalised myocardial infarction. J Clin Epidemiol 2002; 55: 654–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Normand S, Glickman M, Sharma R, et al. Using admission characteristics to predict short-term mortality from myocardial infarction in elderly patients: results from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA 1996; 275: 1322–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Krumholz H, Radford M, Wang Y, et al. Early beta-blocker therapy for acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. Ann Intern Med 1999; 131: 648–54PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gottlieb S, McCarter R, Vogel R. Effect of beta-blockade on mortality among high-risk and low-risk patients after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 489–97PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rathore S, Wang Y, Radford M, et al. Quality of care of medicare beneficiaries with acute myocardial infarction: who is included in quality improvement measurement? J Am Geriatr Soc 2003; 51: 466–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shahi C, Rathore S, Wang Y, et al. Quality of care among elderly patients hospitalised with unstable angina. Am Heart J 2001; 142: 263–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Boucher J, Racine N, Thanh T, et al. Age-related differences in in-hospital mortality and the use of thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. CMAJ 2001; 164: 1285–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Berger A, Radford M, Wang Y, et al. Thrombolytic therapy in older patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2000; 36: 366–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Krumholz HM, Murillo JE, Chen J, et al. Thrombolytic therapy for eligible elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 1997; 277: 1683–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Gurwitz J, Goldberg R, Chen Z, et al. Beta-blocker therapy in acute myocardial infarction: evidence for underutilisation in the elderly. Am J Med 1992; 93: 605–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Krumholz H, Radford M, Eilerbeck E, et al. Aspirin in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction in elderly Medicare beneficiaries: patterns of use and outcomes. Circulation 1995; 92: 2841–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Krumholz H, Chen Y, Wang Y, et al. Aspirin and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors among elderly survivors of hospitalisation for an acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 538–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fonarow G, French W, Parsons L, et al. Use of lipid-lowering medications at discharge in patients with acute myocardial infarction: data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 3. Circulation 2001; 103: 38–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Thiemann D, Coresh J, Schulman S, et al. Lack of benefit for intravenous thrombolysis in patients with myocardial infarction who are older than 75 years. Circulation 2000; 101: 2239–46PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stenestrand U, Wallentin L, Register of Information and Knowledge About Swedish Heart Intensive Care Admissions (RIKS-HIA). Fibrinolytic therapy in patients 75 years and older with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: one-year follow-up of a large prospective cohort. Arch Intern Med 2003; 163: 965–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Woods K, Ketley D. Utilisation of thrombolytic therapy in older patients with myocardial infarction. Drugs Aging 1998; 13: 435–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Dagenais G, Yusuf S, Bourassa M, et al. Effects of ramipril on coronary events in high-risk persons: results of the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study. Circulation 2001; 104: 522–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ades P, Waldmann M, McCann W, et al. Predictors of cardiac rehabilitation participation in older coronary patients. Arch Intern Med 1992; 152: 1033–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rochon P, Clark J, Binns M, et al. Reporting of gender-related information in clinical trials of drug therapy for myocardial infarction. CMAJ 1998; 159: 321–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Pearson M, Kahn K, Harrison E, et al. Differences in quality of care for hospitalised elderly men and women. JAMA 1992; 268: 1883–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Chandra N, Ziegelstein R, Rogers W, et al. Observations of the treatment of women in the United States with myocardial infarction: a report from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction-I. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 981–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Heer T, Schiele R, Schneider S, et al. Gender differences in acute myocardial infarction in the era of reperfusion (the MITRA registry). Am J Cardiol 2002; 89: 511–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Raine R, Black N, Bowker T, et al. Gender differences in the management and outcome of patients with acute coronary artery disease. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002; 56: 791–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rathore S, Wang Y, Radford M, et al. Sex differences in cardiac catheterisation after acute myocardial infarction: the role of procedure appropriateness. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 487–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Gottlieb S, Harpaz D, Shotan A, et al. Sex differences in management and outcome after acute myocardial infarction in the 1990s: a prospective observational community-based study. Israeli Thrombolytic Survey Group. Circulation 2000; 102: 2484–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hanratty B, Lawlor D, Robinson M, et al. Sex differences in risk factors, treatment and mortality after acute myocardial infarction: an observational study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2000; 54: 912–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Mahon N, McKenna C, Codd M, et al. Gender differences in the management and outcome of acute myocardial infarction in unselected patients in the thrombolytic era. Am J Cardiol 2000; 85: 921–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Bowker T, Turner R, Wood D, et al. A national survey of acute myocardial infarction and ischaemia (SAMII) in the UK: characteristics, management and in-hospital outcome in women compared to men in patients under 70 years. Eur Heart J 2000; 21: 1458–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Petersen L, Wright S, Peterson E, et al. Impact of race on cardiac care and outcomes in veterans with acute myocardial infarction. Med Care 2002; 40(1 Suppl.): 86–96Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Taira D, Seto T, Marciel C. Ethnic disparities in care following acute coronary syndromes among Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders during the initial hospitalisation. Cell Mol Biol 2001; 47: 1209–15PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Lopez de Sa E, Lopez-Sendon J, Anguera I, et al. Prognostic value of clinical variables at presentation in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results of the Proyecto de Estudio del Prognostico de la Angina (PEPA). Medicine (Baltimore) 2002; 81: 434–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Frasure-Smith N. In-hospital symptoms of psychological stress as predictors of long-term outcome after acute myocardial infarction in men. Am J Cardiol 1991; 67: 121–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Majumdar S. Beta-blockers for the treatment of hypertension in patients with diabetes: exploring the contraindication myth. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 1999; 13: 435–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Salpeter S, Ormiston T, Salpeter E. Cardioselective beta-blockers for reversible airway disease. Available in The Cochrane Library [database on disk and CD ROM]. Updated quarterly. The Cochrane Collaboration; issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 2002, CD002992Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gerstman B, Jolson H, Bauer M, et al. The incidence of depression in new users of beta-blockers and selected antihypertensives. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 809–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Lim L, Tesfay G, Heller R. Management of patients with diabetes after heart attack: a population-based study of 1982 patients from a heart disease register. Aust N Z J Med 1998; 28: 334–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Chen J, Marciniak T, Radford M, et al. Beta-blocker therapy for secondary prevention of myocardial infarction in elderly diabetic patients: results from the National Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 1388–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Wright R, Reeder G, Herzog C, et al. Acute myocardial infarction and renal dysfunction: a high-risk combination. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 563–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Chen J, Radford M, Wang Y, et al. Effectiveness of beta-blocker therapy after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma. J Am Coll Cardiol 2001; 37: 1950–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Druss B, Bradford D, Rosenheck R, et al. Quality of medical care and excess mortality in older patients with mental disorders. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2001; 58: 565–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Druss B, Bradford D, Rosenheck R, et al. Mental disorders and use of cardiovascular procedures after myocardial infarction. JAMA 2000; 283: 506–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Chen J, Radford M, Wang Y, et al. Care and outcomes of elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction by physician specialty: the effects of comorbidity and functional limitations. Am J Med 2000; 108: 460–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wu A, Parsons L, Every N, et al. Hospital outcomes in patients presenting with congestive heart failure complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the Second Natioanl Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI-2). J Am Coll Cardiol 2002; 40: 1389–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Canto J, Shlipak M, Rogers W, et al. Prevalence, clinical characteristics, and mortality among patients with myocardial infarction presenting without chest pain. JAMA 2000; 283: 3223–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Rathore S, Weinfurt K, Gersh B, et al. Treatment of patients with myocardial infarction who present with a paced rhythm. Ann Intern Med 2001; 134: 644–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Canto J, Zalenski R, Ornato J, et al. Use of emergency medical services in acute myocardial infarction and subsequent quality of care: observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. Circulation 2002; 106: 3018–23PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Kudenchuk P, Maynard C, Cobb L, et al. Utility of the prehospital electrocardiogram in diagnosing acute coronary syndromes: the Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention (MITI) Project. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 17–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Jollis J, DeLong E, Peterson E, et al. Outcome of acute myocardial infarction according to the specialty of the admitting physician. N Engl J Med 1996; 335: 1880–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Reis S, Holubkov R, Zell K, et al. Unstable angina: specialty-related disparities in implementation of practice guidelines. Clin Cardiol 1998; 21: 207–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Willison D, Soumerai SB, McLaughlin TJ, et al. Consultation between cardiologists and generalists in the management of acute myocardial infarction: implications for quality of care. Arch Intern Med 1998; 158: 1778–83PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Frances C, Go A, Dauterman K, et al. Outcome following acute myocardial infarction: are differences among physician specialties the result of quality of care or casemix? Arch Intern Med 1999; 159: 1429–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Frances C, Shlipak M, Noguchi H, et al. Does physician specialty affect the survival of elderly patients with myocardial infarction? Health Serv Res 2000; 35: 1093–116PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Go A, Rao R, Dauterman K, et al. A systematic review of the effects of physician specialty on the treatment of coronary disease and heart failure in the United States. Am J Med 2000; 108: 216–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Gottwik M, Zahn R, Schiele R, et al. Differences in treatment and outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction admitted to hospitals with compared to without departments of cardiology: results from the pooled data of the Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA 1+2) Registries and the Myocardial Infarction Registry (MIR). Eur Heart J 2001; 22: 1794–801PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Scott I, Heath K, Harper C, et al. An Australian comparison of specialist care of acute myocardial infarction. Int J Qual Health Care 2003; 15: 155–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Schultz M, van Servellen G, Litwin M, et al. Can hospital structural and financial characteristics explain variations in mortality caused by acute myocardial infarction? Appl Nurs Res 1999; 12: 210–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Alter D, Naylor C, Austin P, et al. Long-term MI outcomes at hospitals with or without on-site revascularisation. JAMA 2001; 285: 2101–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    America’s best hospitals: where to find top medical care in 16 specialities. US News World Rep 1995 Jul 24: 46–79Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Dendukuri N, Normand S, McNeil B. Impact of cardiac service availability on case-selection for angiography and survival associated with angiography. Health Serv Res 2003; 38: 21–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Steg P, Iung B, Feldman L, et al. Impact of availability and use of coronary interventions on the prescription of aspirin and lipid lowering treatment after acute coronary syndromes. Heart 2002; 88: 20–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Llevadot J, Guigliano R, Antman E, et al. Availability of on-site catheterisation and clinical outcomes in patients receiving fibrinolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 2001; 22: 2049–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Allison J, Kiefe C, Weissman N, et al. Relationship of hospital teaching status with quality of care and mortality for Medicare patients with acute MI. JAMA 2000; 284: 1256–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    O’Connor G, Quinton H, Traven N, et al. Geographic variation in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction: the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA 1999; 281: 627–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Thiemann D, Coresh J, Oetgen W, et al. The association between hospital volume and survival after acute myocardial infarction in elderly patients. N Engl J Med 1999; 340: 1640–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Magid D, Calonge B, Rumsfeld J, et al. Relation between hospital primary angioplasty volume and mortality for patients with acute MI treated with primary angioplasty vs thrombolytic therapy. JAMA 2000; 284: 3131–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Canto J, Every N, Magid D, et al. The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction: National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1573–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Malenka D, McGrath P, Wennberg D, et al. The relationship between operator volume and outcomes after percutaneous coronary interventions in high volume hospitals in 1994–1996: the northern New England experience. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 1471–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Jollis J, Peterson E, Nelson C, et al. Relationship between physician and hospital coronary angioplasty volume and outcome in elderly patients. Circulation 1997; 95: 2485–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Willison D, Soumerai S, Palmer R. Association of physician and hospital volume with use of aspirin and reperfusion therapy in acute myocardial infarction. Med Care 2000; 38: 1092–102PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    McCormick D, Gurwitz J, Savageau J, et al. Differences in discharge medication after acute myocardial infarction in patients with HMO and fee-for-service medical insurance. J Gen Intern Med 1999; 14: 73–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Every N, Cannon C, Granger C, et al. Influence of insurance type on the use of procedures, medications and hospital outcome in patients with unstable angina: results from the GUARANTEE Registry. Global Unstable Angina Registry and Treatment Evaluation. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 32: 387–92PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Petersen L, Normand S, Daley J, et al. Outcome of myocardial infarction in Veterans Health Administration patients compared with medicare patients. N Engl J Med 2000; 343: 1934–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Iliadis E, Klein L, Vandenberg B, et al. Clinical practice guidelines in unstable angina improve clinical outcomes by assuring early intensive medical treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol 1999; 34: 1689–95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Mehta R, Montoye C, Gallogly M, et al. Improving quality in the care of acute myocardial infarction: the Guidelines Applied to Practice (GAP) Initiative. JAMA 2002; 287: 1269–76PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Robinson M, Thompson E, Black N. Evaluation of the effectiveness of guidelines, audit and feedback: improving the use of intravenous thrombolysis in patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. Int J Qual Health Care 1996; 8: 211–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Holmboe E, Meehan T, Radford M, et al. Use of critical pathways to improve the care of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 1999; 107: 324–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Clinical Quality Improvement Network Investigators. Influence of a critical path management tool in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. Am J Manag Care 1998; 4: 1243–51Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Sarasin F, Maschiangelo M, Schaller M, et al. Successful implementation of guidelines for encouraging the use of beta-blockers in patients after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Med 1999; 106: 499–505PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Selker H, Beshansky J, Griffith J. A controlled trial of the Acute Cardiac Ischemia Time-Insensitive Predictive Instrument (ACI-TIPI) Electrocardiograph on emergency department triage [abstract]. J Invest Med 1995; 43: 497AGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Cannon C, Hand M, Bahr R, et al. Critical pathways for management of patients with acute coronary syndromes: an assessment by the National Heart Attack Alert Program. Am Heart J 2002; 143: 777–89PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Kendall J, McCabe S. The use of audit to set up a thrombolysis programme in the accident and emergency department. J Accid Emerg Med 1996; 13: 49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Currie P, Gray S, Shaw T, et al. Success of audit in reducing the time taken to administer thrombolysis and aspirin in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Scott Med J 1994; 39: 120–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Lloyd G, Roberts A, Bashir I, et al. An audit of clinical nurse practitioner led thrombolysis to improve the treatment of acute myocardial infarction. J Public Health Med 2000; 22: 462–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Soumerai S, McLaughlin T, Gurwitz J, et al. Effect of local medical opinion leaders on quality of care for acute myocardial infarction: a randomised controlled trial. JAMA 1998; 279: 1358–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Axtell S, Ludwig E, Lope-Candales P. Intervention to improve adherence to ACC/AHA recommended adjunctive medications for the management of patients with an acute myocardial infarction. Clin Cardiol 2001; 24: 114–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Coombes I, Sanders D, Thiele J, et al. The extended role of the clinical pharmacist in the management of heart failure and acute coronary syndromes. J Pharm Pract Res 2002; 32: 17–23Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Mehta R, Das S, Tsai T, et al. Quality improvement initiative and its impact on the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 3057–62PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Scott I, Coory M, Harper C. The effects of quality improvement interventions on inhospital mortality after acute myocardial infarction. Med J Aust 2001; 175: 465–70PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Bradley E, Holmboe E, Mattera J, et al. A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: why do some hospitals succeed? JAMA 2001; 285: 2604–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Bradley E, Holmboe E, Mattera J, et al. The roles of senior management in quality improvement efforts: what are the key components? J Healthc Manag 2003; 48: 15–28PubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Marciniak T, Mosedale L, Eilerbeck E. Quality improvement at the national level: lessons from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Eval Health Prof 1998; 21: 525–36PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Eagle K, Garson A, Beller G, et al. Closing the gap between science and practice: the need for professional leadership. Health Aff (Millwood) 2003; 22: 196–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Campbell D, Scott I, Andersen J, et al. Improving clinical practice: what works and what doesn’t? Intern Med J 2001; 31: 536–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Scott I. Time for a collective approach from medical specialists to clinical governance. Intern Med J 2002; 32: 499–501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Heller R, D’Este C, Lim L, et al. Randomised controlled trial to change the hospital management of unstable angina. Med J Aust 2001; 174: 217–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Sauaia A, Ralston D, Schluter W, et al. Influencing care in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised trial comparing 2 types of intervention. Am J Med Qual 2000; 15: 197–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Ellerbeck E, Kresowik T, Hemann R, et al. Impact of quality improvement activities on care for acute myocardial infarction. Int J Qual Health Care 2000; 12: 305–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Isouard G. A quality management intervention to improve clinical laboratory use in acute myocardial infarction. Med J Aust 1999; 170: 11–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Krumholz H, Philbin D, Wang Y, et al. Trends in the quality of care for Medicare beneficiaries admitted to the hospital with unstable angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 1998; 31: 957–63PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Selker H, Zalenski R, Antman E, et al. An evaluation of technologies for identifying acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a report from a National Heart Attack Alert Program Working Group. Ann Emerg Med 1997; 29: 13–87PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Selker H, Beshansky J, Griffith J. Use of the electrocardiograph-based thrombolytic predictive instrument to asist thrombolytic and reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a multicentre, randomised, controlled, clinical effectiveness trial. Ann Intern Med 2002; 137: 87–95PubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Gomez M, Anderson J, Karagounis L, et al. An emergency department-based protocol for rapidly ruling out myocardial ischemia reduces hospital time and exercise: results of a randomized study (ROMIO). J Am Coll Cardiol 1996; 28: 25–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Nichol G, Walls R, Goldman L, et al. A critical pathway for management of patients with acute chest pain who are at low risk for myocardial ischemia: recommendations and potential impact. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 996–1005PubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Porter G, Doughty R, Gamble G, et al. Thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: reducing in-hospital treatment delay. N Z J Med 1995; 108: 253–4Google Scholar
  128. 128.
    Cummings P. Improving the time to thrombolytic therapy for myocardial infarction by using a quality assurance audit. Ann Emerg Med 1992; 21: 1107–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. 129.
    Qasim A, Malpass K, O’Gorman D, et al. Safety and efficacy of nurse initiated thrombolysis in patients with acute myocardial infarction. BMJ 2002; 324: 1328–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Fonarow G, Gawlinski A, Moughrabi S, et al. Improved treatment of coronary heart disease by implementation of a Cardiac Hospitalisation Atherosclerosis Management Program (CHAMP). Am J Cardiol 2001; 87: 819–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Bonetti P, Waeckerlin A, Schuepfer G, et al. Improving time-insensitive processes in the intensive care unit: the example of ‘door-to-needle time’ in acute myocardial infarction. Int J Qual Health Care 2000; 12: 311–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Gilutz H, Battler A, Rabinowitz I, et al. The “door-to-needle blitz” in acute myocardial infarction: the impact of a CQI project. Jt Comm J Qual Improv 1998; 24: 323–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Senior J, Patel N. Reducing thrombolytic therapy time delays in the emergency department. J Qual Clin Pract 1998; 18: 99–107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Farkouh M, Smars P, Reeder G, et al. A clinical trial of a chest pain observation unit for patients with unstable angina: Chest Pain Evaluation in the Emergency Room (CHEER) Investigators. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 1882–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Internal Medicine, Clinical Services Evaluation Unit, Level 5B, Medical SpecialtiesPrincess Alexandra HospitalBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations