Economic and clinical outcomes of a physician-led continuous quality improvement intervention in the delivery of percutaneous coronary intervention

American Journal of Managed Care

Volumn 12, Issue 8, 2006, Pages 445-452

  Rihal, Charanjit S ^a,b   Kamath, Celia C ^a   Holmes Jr , David R ^a   Reller, M Katherine ^a   Anderson, Stephanie S ^a   McMurtry, Erin K ^a   Long, Kirsten Hall ^a  

^a Mayo Clinic College of Medicine   (United States)

^b MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

FIBRINOGEN RECEPTOR ANTAGONIST;

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CORONARY STENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; COST CONTROL; DEATH; DIABETES MELLITUS; ECONOMIC EVALUATION; FEMALE; HEART INFARCTION; HOSPITALIZATION; HUMAN; INTERVENTIONAL CARDIOVASCULAR PROCEDURE; LENGTH OF STAY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PHYSICIAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITY OF LIFE; RISK; SEX RATIO; STATISTICAL MODEL; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

AGED; ANGIOPLASTY, TRANSLUMINAL, PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY; COHORT STUDIES; FEMALE; HUMANS; LEADERSHIP; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PHYSICIANS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 33747618274     PISSN: 10880224     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. American Heart Association. Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2006 Update. Dallas, Tex: American Heart Association; 2006. Available at http://www. americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=1928. Accessed May 30, 2006.
2. Weintraub WS, Mauldin PD, Becker E, Kosinski AS, King SB III. A comparison of the costs of and quality of life after coronary angioplasty or coronary surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease. Results from the Emory Angioplasty Versus Surgery Trial (EAST). Circulation. 1995;92:2831-2840.
3. Hlatky MA, Rogers WJ, Johnstone I, et al. Medical care costs and quality of life after randomization to coronary angioplasty or coronary bypass surgery. Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) investigators. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:92-99.
4. Becker ER, Morris DC, Culler SD, et al. The changing healthcare market: outlook for the future of cardiovascular disease treatment. Part 2. Am J Manag Care. 1999;5:1125-1130.
5. Hodgson TA, Cohen AJ. Medical expenditures for major diseases, 1995. Health Care Financ Rev. 1999;21:119-164.
6. Hodgson TA, Cohen AJ. Medical cate expenditures for selected circulatory diseases: opportunities for reducing national health expenditures. Med Care. 1999;37:994-1012.
7. Berwick DM. Developing and testing changes in the delivery of care. Ann Intern Med. 1998;128:651-656.
8. Langley G, Nolan K, Nolan T, Norman C, Provost L. The Improvement Book. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass; 1996.
9. Hasdai D, Garratt KN, Grill DE, Lerman A, Holmes DR Jr. Effect of smoking status on the long-term outcome after successful percutaneous coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:755-761.
10. US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Consumer price indexes. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm. Accessed January 7, 2005.
11. Briggs A, Gray A. The distribution of health care costs and their statistical analysis for economic evaluation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1998;3:233-245.
12. Singh M, Lennon RJ, Holmes DR Jr, Bell MR, Rihal CS. Correlates of procedural complications and a simple integer risk score for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:387-393.
13. Singh M, Rihal CS, Lennon RJ, Garratt KN, Holmes DR Jr. Comparison of Mayo Clinic Risk Score and American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association lesion classification in the prediction of adverse cardiovascular outcome following percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:357-361.
14. The MEDSTAT Group, Inc. Medstat Disease Staging™ Software Version 5.21. Reference Guide. 2003;1-24. Available at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/db/ nation/nis/DiseaseStagingV5.2ReferenceGuide.pdf. Accessed November 3, 2005.
15. Barber J, Thompson S. Multiple regression of cost data: use of generalised linear models. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2004;9:197-204.
16. Manning WG, Mullahy J. Estimating log models: to transform or not to transform? J Health Econ. 2001;20:461-494.
17. Ferguson TB Jr, Peterson ED, Coombs LP, et al. Use of continuous quality improvement to increase use of process measures in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2003;290:49-56.
18. Cheah J. Clinical pathways-an evaluation of its impact on the quality of care in an acute care general hospital in Singapore. Singapore Med J. 2000;41:335-346.
19. Malenka DJ, O'Connor GT. The Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group: a regional collaborative effort for continuous quality improvement in cardiovascular disease. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1998;24:594-600.
20. Hashimoto H, Bohmer RM, Harrell LC, Palacios IF. Continuous quality improvement decreases length of stay and adverse events: a case study in an interventional cardiology program. Am J Manag Care. 1997;3:1141-1150.
21. Eagle KA, Moscucci M, Kline-Rogers E, et al. Evaluating and improving the delivery of heart care: the University of Michigan experience. Am J Manag Care. 1998;4:1300-1309.
22. Eagle KA, Knight BP, Moscucci M, et al. Competitive bidding for interventional cardiology supplies: lessons learned during round 2. Am J Manag Care. 2002;8:384-388.
23. Moscucci M, Muller DW, Watts CM, et al. Reducing costs and improving outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Manag Care. 2003;9:365-372.
24. Heupler FA Jr, al-Hani AJ, Dear WE. Guidelines for continuous quality improvement in the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Laboratory Performance Standards Committee of the Society for Cardiac Angiography & Interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Diagn. 1993;30:191-200.
25. Cohen DJ, Becker ER, Culler SD, et al. Impact of patient characteristics, complications, and facility volume on the costs and time of cardiac catheterization and coronary angioplasty in 70 catheterization laboratories. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:595-601.
26. Hannan EL, Racz M, Ryan TJ, et al. Coronary angioplasty volume-outcome relationships for hospitals and cardiologists. JAMA. 1997;277:892-898.
27. McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, Dickens JD Jr, et al. Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent. JAMA. 2000;284:3139-3144.
28. Ellis SG, Weintraub W, Holmes D, Shaw R, Block PC, King SB III. Relation of operator volume and experience to procedural outcome of percutaneous coronary revascularization at hospitals with high interventional volumes. Circulation. 1997;95:2479-2484.