Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evolution of Modern Cardiovascular Quality Metrics

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Quality Measures

  • 434 Accesses

Abstract

It is the winter of 1990 and a 68-year-old woman with a history of hypertension presents with a syndrome of stuttering chest pain and associated dyspnea. She was working at the time and was encouraged by her coworkers to go to the emergency room. Ultimately, she was admitted to her local hospital and treated for a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction and discharged home. She was told—and believed—that the care she received was excellent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Anon. Secondary prevention of vascular disease by prolonged antiplatelet treatment. Antiplatelet Trialists’ Collaboration. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1988;296:320–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ellerbeck EF, Jencks SF, Radford MJ, et al. Quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction. A four-state pilot study from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1995;273:1509–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tooley SA. The life of Florence Nightingale. London: S.H. Bousfield & Co., Ltd.; 1905. ISBN-13: 978-1104449629.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Higginson IJ, Carr AJ. Measuring quality of life: using quality of life measures in the clinical setting. BMJ. 2001;322:1297–300.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Lloyd-Jones DM. Cardiovascular risk prediction: basic concepts, current status, and future directions. Circulation. 2010;121:1768–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Strasser T. Reflections on cardiovascular diseases. Interdiscip Sci Rev. 1978;3:225–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gillman MW. Primordial prevention of cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2015;131:599–601.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Ford ES, Ajani UA, Croft JB, et al. Explaining the decrease in U.S. deaths from coronary disease, 1980–2000. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:2388–98.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Anon. To err is human. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Anon. Crossing the quality chasm. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Berwick DM. A user’s manual for the IOM’s ‘quality chasm’ report. Health Aff. 2002;21:80–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Blendon RJ, Altman DE, Benson JM, Brodie M. Health care in the 2004 presidential election. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1314–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Anon. No title. Available at: http://www.ahrq.gov/talkingquality/measures/types.html.

  14. Chatterjee P, Joynt KE. Do cardiology quality measures actually improve patient outcomes? J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3:e000404.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wasfy JH, Borden WB, Secemsky EA, McCabe JM, Yeh RW. Public reporting in cardiovascular medicine: accountability, unintended consequences, and promise for improvement. Circulation. 2015;131:1518–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hannan EL, Kilburn H, Racz M, Shields E, Chassin MR. Improving the outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery in New York State. JAMA. 1994;271:761–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Omoigui NA, Miller DP, Brown KJ, et al. Outmigration for coronary bypass surgery in an era of public dissemination of clinical outcomes. Circulation. 1996;93:27–33.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Peberdy MA, Donnino MW, Callaway CW, et al. Impact of percutaneous coronary intervention performance reporting on cardiac resuscitation centers: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;128:762–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rowe R, Iqbal J, Murali-krishnan R, et al. Role of frailty assessment in patients undergoing cardiac interventions. Open Heart. 2014;1:e000033–e000033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Green J, Wintfeld N. Report cards on cardiac surgeons. Assessing New York State’s approach. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1229–32.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kent DM, Hayward RA. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007;298:1209–12.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Forman DE, Maurer MS, Boyd C, et al. Multimorbidity in older adults with cardiovascular disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2149–61.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Rogers WJ, Bowlby LJ, Chandra NC, et al. Treatment of myocardial infarction in the United States (1990 to 1993). Observations from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction. Circulation. 1994;90:2103–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Yusuf S, Sleight P, Held P, McMahon S. Routine medical management of acute myocardial infarction. Lessons from overviews of recent randomized controlled trials. Circulation. 1990;82:II117–34.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Gunnar RM, Bourdillon PD, Dixon DW, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the early management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Assessment of Diagnostic and Therapeutic Cardiovascular Procedures (subcommit). Circulation. 1990;82:664–707.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Rosamond WD, Shahar E, McGovern PG, Sides TL, Luepker RV. Trends in coronary thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction (the Minnesota Heart Survey Registry, 1990 to 1993). Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:271–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Gunter N, Moore L, Odom P. Cooperative cardiovascular project. J S C Med Assoc. 1997;93:177–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Marciniak TA, Ellerbeck EF, Radford MJ, et al. Improving the quality of care for Medicare patients with acute myocardial infarction: results from the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. JAMA. 1998;279:1351–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Masoudi FA, Ralston DL, Wolfe P, et al. Baseline quality indicator rates from the National Heart Failure Project: a HCFA initiative to improve the care of medicare beneficiaries with heart failure. Congest Heart Fail. 7:53–6.

    Google Scholar 

  30. McNaughton H, McPherson K, Taylor W, Weatherall M. Relationship between process and outcome in stroke care. Stroke. 2003;34:713–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Peterson ED, Roe MT, Mulgund J, et al. Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2006;295:1912–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bradley EH, Herrin J, Elbel B, et al. Hospital quality for acute myocardial infarction: correlation among process measures and relationship with short-term mortality. JAMA. 2006;296:72–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fonarow GC, Abraham WT, Albert NM, et al. Association between performance measures and clinical outcomes for patients hospitalized with heart failure. JAMA. 2007;297:61–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Heidenreich PA, Hernandez AF, Yancy CW, Liang L, Peterson ED, Fonarow GC. Get with the guidelines program participation, process of care, and outcome for medicare patients hospitalized with heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:37–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Anon. No title. Available at: http://www.qualityforum.org/Measures_List.aspx.

  36. National Quality Forum. NQF‐Endorsed® Standards. 1999. Available at: http://www.qualityforum.org/Measures_List.aspx.

  37. Berthiaume JT, Chung RS, Ryskina KL, Walsh J, Legorreta AP. Aligning financial incentives with quality of care in the hospital setting. J Healthc Qual. 2006;28:36–44, 51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Nahra TA, Reiter KL, Hirth RA, Shermer JE, Wheeler JRC. Cost-effectiveness of hospital pay-for-performance incentives. Med Care Res Rev. 2006;63:49S–72S.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Lindenauer PK, Remus D, Roman S, et al. Public reporting and pay for performance in hospital quality improvement. N Engl J Med. 2007;356:486–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Glickman SW, Ou F-S, DeLong ER, et al. Pay for performance, quality of care, and outcomes in acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2007;297:2373–80.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) H. Medicare program; hospital inpatient value-based purchasing program. Final rule. Fed Regist. 2011;76:26490–547.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ryan AM, Blustein J, Casalino LP. Medicare’s flagship test of pay-for-performance did not spur more rapid quality improvement among low-performing hospitals. Health Aff. 2012;31:797–805.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Hayward RA. Kent DM. 6 EZ steps to improving your performance: (or how to make P4P pay 4U!). JAMA. 2008;300:255–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Figueroa JF, Tsugawa Y, Zheng J, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Association between the Value-Based Purchasing pay for performance program and patient mortality in US hospitals: observational study. BMJ. 2016;353:i2214.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Papanicolas I, Figueroa JF, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Patient hospital experience improved modestly, but no evidence medicare incentives promoted meaningful gains. Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36:133–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Jha AK. Time to get serious about pay for performance. JAMA. 2013;309:347.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Keenan PS, Normand ST, Lin Z, et al. An administrative claims measure suitable for profiling hospital performance on the basis of 30-day all-cause readmission rates among patients with heart failure. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1:29–37.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Zuckerman RB, Sheingold SH, Orav EJ, Ruhter J, Epstein AM. Readmissions, observation, and the hospital readmissions reduction program. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1543–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Konstam MA. Heart failure in the lifetime of Musca Domestica (the common housefly). JACC Heart Fail. 2013;1:178–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Wadhera RK, Joynt Maddox KE, Wasfy JH, Haneuse S, Shen C, Yeh RW. Association of the hospital readmissions reduction program with mortality among medicare beneficiaries hospitalized for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia. JAMA – J Am Med Assoc. 2018;320:2542–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gupta A, Allen LA, Bhatt DL, et al. Association of the hospital readmissions reduction program implementation with readmission and mortality outcomes in heart failure. JAMA Cardiol. 2018;3:44.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Krumholz HM, Chaudhry SI, Spertus JA, Mattera JA, Hodshon B, Herrin J. Do non-clinical factors improve prediction of readmission risk? JACC Heart Fail. 2016;4:12–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Joynt KE, Jha AK. Characteristics of hospitals receiving penalties under the hospital readmissions reduction program. JAMA. 2013;309:342.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Figueroa JF, Joynt KE, Zhou X, Orav EJ, Jha AK. Safety-net hospitals face more barriers yet use fewer strategies to reduce readmissions. Med Care. 2017;55:229–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  55. Rathi VK, McWilliams JM. First-year report cards from the Merit-Based Incentive Payment System (MIPS). JAMA. 2019;321:1157.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. MacLean CH, Kerr EA, Qaseem A. Time out — charting a path for improving performance measurement. N Engl J Med. 2018;378:1757–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. O’Brien SM, Shahian DM, Filardo G, et al. The society of thoracic surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 2—isolated valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009;88:S23–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Van Calster B, Nieboer D, Vergouwe Y, De Cock B, Pencina MJ, Steyerberg EW. A calibration hierarchy for risk models was defined: from utopia to empirical data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:167–76.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Cook NR. Use and misuse of the receiver operating characteristic curve in risk prediction. Circulation. 2007;115:928–35.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Steyerberg EW, Borsboom GJJM, van Houwelingen HC, Eijkemans MJC, Habbema JDF. Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat Med. 2004;23:2567–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Ifeany David Chinedozi

  2. Division of Cardiology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Benjamin Wessler

  3. Predictive Analytic sand Comparative Effectiveness (PACE) Center, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA

    Benjamin Wessler

Authors
  1. Ifeany David Chinedozi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin Wessler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Benjamin Wessler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA

    Deeb N. Salem

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Chinedozi, I.D., Wessler, B. (2020). Evolution of Modern Cardiovascular Quality Metrics. In: Salem, D. (eds) Quality Measures. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37145-6_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37145-6_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-37144-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-37145-6

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation