Background: In the management of non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NST-ACS) a gap between guideline-recommended care and actual practice has been reported. A systematic overview of the actual extent of this gap, its potential impact on patient-outcomes, and influential factors is lacking.Objective: To examine the extent of guideline adherence, to study associations with the occurrence of adverse cardiac events, and to identify factors associated with guideline adherence.Method: Systematic literature review, for which PUBMED, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane library were searched until March 2016. Further, a manual search was performed using reference lists of included studies. Two reviewers independently performed quality-assessment and data extraction of the eligible studies.Results: Adherence rates varied widely within and between 45 eligible studies, ranging from less than 5.0% to more than 95.0% for recommendations on acute and discharge pharmacological treatment, 34.3% - 93.0% for risk stratification, and 16.0% - 95.8% for performing coronary angiography. Seven studies indicated that higher adherence rates were associated with lower mortality. Several patient-related (e.g. age, gender, co-morbidities) and organization-related (e.g. teaching hospital) factors influencing adherence were identified.Conclusion: This review showed wide variation in guideline adherence, with a substantial proportion of NST-ACS patients possibly not receiving guideline-recommended care. Consequently, lower adherence might be associated with a higher risk for poor prognosis. Future research should further investigate the complex nature of guideline adherence in NST-ACS, its impact on clinical care, and factors influencing adherence. This knowledge is essential to optimize clinical management of NST-ACS patients and could guide future quality improvement initiatives.

BackgroundIncreasing guideline adherence in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) in hospitals potentially reduces heart failure and mortality. Therefore, an expert panel identified three guideline recommendations as the most important aims for improvement in ACS care, i.e. timely invasive treatment, use of risk scoring instruments and prescription of secondary prevention medication at discharge.AimsThis study aims to evaluate in-hospital guideline adherence in the care of patients diagnosed with ACS and to identify associated factors.MethodsThe study has a cross-sectional design. Data are collected in 13 hospitals in the Netherlands by means of retrospective chart review of patients discharged in 2012 with a diagnosis of ACS. The primary outcomes will be the percentages of patients receiving timely invasive treatment, with a documented cardiac risk score, and with a prescription of the guideline-recommended discharge medication. In addition, factors associated with guideline adherence will be studied using generalised linear (mixed) models.DiscussionThis study explores guideline adherence in Dutch hospitals in the management of patients diagnosed with ACS, using a data source universally available in hospitals. The results of this study can be informative for professionals involved in ACS care as they facilitate targeted improvement efforts.

BackgroundCardiac risk scores estimate a patient’s risk of future cardiac events or death. They are developed to inform treatment decisions of patients diagnosed with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Despite recommending their use in guidelines and evidence of their prognostic value, they seem underused in practice. The purpose of the study was to gain insight in the motivation for implementing cardiac risk scores, and perceptions of health care practitioners towards the use of these instruments in clinical practice.MethodsThis qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 31 health care practitioners at 11 hospitals throughout the Netherlands. Participants were approached through purposive sampling to represent a broad range of participant- and hospital characteristics, and included cardiologists, medical residents, medical interns, nurse practitioners and an emergency physician. The Pettigrew and Whipp Framework for strategic change was used as a theoretical basis. Data were initially analysed through open coding to avoid forcing data into categories predetermined by the framework.ResultsCardiac risk score use was dependent on several factors, including IT support, clinical relevance for daily practice, rotation of staff and workload. Both intrinsic and extrinsic drivers for implementation were identified. Reminders, feedback and IT solutions were strategies used to improve and sustain the use of these instruments. The scores were seen as valuable support systems in improving uniformity in treatment practices, educating interns, conducting research and quantifying a practitioner’s own risk assessment. However, health care practitioners varied in their perceptions regarding the influence of cardiac risk scores on treatment decisions.ConclusionsHealth care practitioners disagree on the value of cardiac risk scores for clinical practice. Practitioners driven by intrinsic motivations predominantly experienced benefits in policy-making, education and research. Practitioners who were forced to use cardiac risk scores were less likely to take into account the risk score in their treatment decisions. The results of this study can be used to develop strategies that stimulate or sustain cardiac risk score use in practice, while taking into account barriers that affect cardiac risk score use, and possibly reduce practice variation in the management of unstable angina and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-418) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesQuantitative risk assessment in unstable angina (UA) and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), by using cardiac risk scores, is recommended in international guidelines. However, a gap between recommended care and actual practice exists, as these instruments seem underused in practice. The present study aimed to determine the extent of cardiac risk score use and to study factors associated with lower or higher cardiac risk score use.Setting13 hospitals throughout the Netherlands.ParticipantsA retrospective chart review of 1788 charts of patients with UA and NSTEMI, discharged in 2012.Primary and secondary outcomesThe extent of cardiac risk score use reflected in a documented risk score outcome in the patient's chart. Factors associated with cardiac risk score use determined by generalised linear mixed models.ResultsIn 57% (n=1019) of the charts, physicians documented the use of a cardiac risk score. Substantial variation between hospitals was observed (16.7–87%), although this variation could not be explained by the presence of on-site revascularisation facilities or a hospitals’ teaching status. Obese patients (OR=1.49; CI 95%1.03 to 2.15) and former smokers (OR=1.56; CI 95%1.15 to 2.11) were more likely to have a cardiac risk score documented. Risk scores were less likely to be used among patients diagnosed with UA (OR=0.60; CI 95% 0.46 to 0.77), in-hospital resuscitation (OR=0.23; CI 95% 0.09 to 0.64), in-hospital heart failure (OR=0.46; CI 95% 0.27 to 0.76) or tachycardia (OR=0.45; CI 95% 0.26 to 0.75).ConclusionsDespite recommendations in cardiac guidelines, the use of cardiac risk scores has not been fully implemented in Dutch practice. A substantial number of patients did not have a cardiac risk score documented in their chart. Strategies to improve cardiac risk score use should pay special attention to patient groups in which risk scores were less often documented, as these patients may currently be undertreated.

IntroductionCardiologists face the difficult task of rapidly distinguishing cardiac-related chest pain from other conditions, and to thoroughly consider whether invasive diagnostic procedures or treatments are indicated. The use of cardiac risk-scoring instruments has been recommended in international cardiac guidelines. However, it is unknown to what degree cardiac risk scores and other clinical information influence cardiologists’ decision-making. This paper describes the development of a binary choice experiment using realistic descriptions of clinical cases. The study aims to determine the importance cardiologists put on different types of clinical information, including cardiac risk scores, when deciding on the management of patients with suspected unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction.Methods and analysisCardiologists were asked, in a nationwide survey, to weigh different clinical factors in decision-making regarding patient admission and treatment using realistic descriptions of patients in which specific characteristics are varied in a systematic way (eg, web-based clinical vignettes). These vignettes represent patients with suspected unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Associations between several clinical characteristics, with cardiologists’ management decisions, will be analysed using generalised linear mixed models.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received ethics approval and informed consent will be obtained from all participating cardiologists. The results of the study will provide insight into the relative importance of cardiac risk scores and other clinical information in cardiac decision-making. Further, the results indicate cardiologists’ adherence to the European Society of Cardiology guideline recommendations. In addition, the detailed description of the method of vignette development applied in this study could assist other researchers or clinicians in creating future choice experiments.

ObjectiveCardiac guidelines recommend that the decision to perform coronary angiography (CA) in patients with Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (NST-ACS) is based on multiple factors. It is, however, unknown how cardiologists weigh these factors in their decision-making. The aim was to investigate the importance of different clinical characteristics, including information derived from risk scores, in the decision-making of Dutch cardiologists regarding performing CA in patients with suspected NST-ACS.DesignA web-based survey containing clinical vignettes.Setting and participantsRegistered Dutch cardiologists were approached to complete the survey, in which they were asked to indicate whether they would perform CA for 8 vignettes describing 7 clinical factors: age, renal function, known coronary artery disease, persistent chest pain, presence of risk factors, ECG findings and troponin levels. Cardiologists were divided into two groups: group 1 received vignettes ‘without’ a risk score present, while group 2 completed vignettes ‘with’ a risk score present.Results129 (of 946) cardiologists responded. In both groups, elevated troponin levels and typical ischaemic changes (p<0.001) made cardiologists decide more often to perform CA. Severe renal dysfunction (p<0.001) made cardiologists more hesitant to decide on CA. Age and risk score could not be assessed independently, as these factors were strongly associated. Inspecting the factors together showed, for example, that cardiologists were more hesitant to perform CA in elderly patients with high-risk scores than in younger patients with intermediate risk scores.ConclusionsWhen deciding to perform in-hospital CA (≤72 hours after patient admission) in patients with suspected NST-ACS, cardiologists tend to rely mostly on troponin levels, ECG changes and renal function. Future research should focus on why CA is less often recommended in patients with severe renal dysfunction, and in elderly patients with high-risk scores. In addition, the impact of age and risk score on decision-making should be further investigated.

AimTo assess the comparability of five performance indicator scores for treatment delay among patients diagnosed with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in relation to the quality of the underlying data.MethodsSecondary analyses were performed on data from 1017 patients in seven Dutch hospitals. Data were collected using standardised forms for patients discharged in 2012. Comparability was assessed as the number of occasions the indicator threshold was reached for each hospital.ResultsHospitals recorded different time points based on different interpretations of the definitions. This led to substantial differences in indicator scores, ranging from 57 to 100 % of the indictor threshold being reached. Some hospitals recorded all the required data elements for calculating the performance indicators but none of the data elements could be retrieved in a fully automated way. Moreover, recording accessibility and completeness of time points varied widely within and between hospitals.ConclusionHospitals use different definitions for treatment delay and vary greatly in the extent to which the necessary data are available, accessible and complete, impeding comparability between hospitals. Indicator developers, users and hospitals providing data should be aware of these issues and aim to improve data quality in order to facilitate comparability of performance indicators.

No abstract