English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Open

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Insights

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Background  The Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement recently proposed percutaneous coronary intervention ( PCI )‐specific process measures. However, information about hospital performance on these measures and the association of  PCI  process and outcomes measures are not available.    Methods and Results  We linked the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Cath PCI  Registry with Medicare claims data to assess hospital performance on established  PCI  process measures (aspirin, thienopyridines, and statins on discharge; door‐to‐balloon time; and referral to cardiac rehabilitation), newly proposed  PCI  process measures (documentation of contrast dose, glomerular filtration rate, and  PCI  indication; appropriate indication for elective  PCI ; and use of embolic protection device), and a composite of all process measures. We calculated weighted pair‐wise correlations between each set of process metrics and performed weighted correlation analyses to assess the association between composite measure performance with corresponding 30‐day risk‐standardized mortality and readmission rates. We reported the variance in risk‐standardized 30‐day outcome rates explained by process measures. We analyzed 1 268 860  PCI s from 1331 hospitals. For many process measures, median hospital performance exceeded 90%. We found strong correlations between medication‐specific process measures ( P <0.01) and weak correlations between hospital performance on the newly proposed and established process measures. The composite process measure explained only 1.3% and 2.0% of the observed variation in mortality and readmission rates, respectively.    Conclusions  Hospital performance on many  PCI ‐specific process measures demonstrated little opportunity for improvement and explained only a small percentage of hospital variation in 30‐day outcomes. Efforts to measure and improve hospital quality for  PCI  patients should focus on both process and outcome measures.

Hospital Performance on Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Process and Outcomes Measures