Quality indicators for acute cardiovascular diseases: a scoping review

Abstract

Background Although many quality indicator (QI) sets have been developed for acute cardiovascular diseases, a comprehensive summary is lacking. In this scoping review we aimed to summarize the available evidence on the QI sets for acute cardiovascular diseases, and assess the QI set development process. We followed the Joanna Briggs Institute framework and the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. Methods We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and major international guidelines on QIs for acute major cardiovascular diseases. The study included articles published after 2000. Results Among the 3112 articles screened, 18 were included in this scoping review. Among the 18 articles included, 12 were on acute coronary syndrome (ACS), five on acute heart failure (AHF), and two on acute aortic dissection (AAD); one article included QIs for both ACS and AHF. Only four of these studies conducted a systematic search with a search strategy. From the 18 articles, 268 QIs containing duplication between articles were identified (191 QIs were for ACS, 57 were for AHF, and 20 were for AAD) and QI measurements varied across articles. Conclusions This scoping review provides a comprehensive list of QIs for acute cardiovascular diseases. Our results may be helpful to clinicians and organizations seeking to develop QIs for acute cardiovascular care in the future.

Benchmarking System Monitoring on Quality Improvement in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

“…The use of QI has garnered the interest of multiple stakeholders, including academic societies, payers, and the public. 2 , 8 , 9 …”

“…Various QIs have been used in the context of PCI, including door-to-balloon (D2B) time in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and the implementation of transradial intervention (TRI). 9 , 10 Although adherence to such QIs in these settings has been linked to improved outcomes according to various benchmarking methods, 3 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 the optimal approach for providing feedback to enhance compliance with QIs remains uncertain. 15 , 16 These interventions may be one time, regular, real time, interactive, or multifaceted (eg, checklists and educational materials).…”

Health outcomes measurement for value-based healthcare

“…Reviewing these two medical conditions provided an in-depth understanding of quality measures that should be monitored in a wide range of medical conditions (Kanaoka et al, 2022;Aktaa et al, 2022;Rajaguru et al, 2022). The evidence included in Chapter 2 revealed that measures of survival and disease control are commonly used in VBHC.…”