Non-tertiary Centers Research Articles

Assessing the Effect of Publication of Clinical Guidelines on the Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction in The TIMI III (1990-1993) and the GUARANTEE (1995-1996) Registries

The clinical guidelines for unstable angina (UA) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) published in 1994 by the Agency for Health Care Policy Research (AHCPR) were intended to help improve treatment. No large study, however, has evaluated the effect of the guidelines on clinical practice We compared the treatment of 3,318 patients admitted with UA/NSTEMI in the preguideline Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) III Registry (1990-1993) and 2,948 patients enrolled in the postguideline Global Unstable Angina Registry and Treatment Evaluation (GUARANTEE) Registry (1995-1996). More patients in GUARANTEE received guideline-recommended medication than did those in TIMI III, specifically beta-blockers (50.9% vs. 40.7%, P < 0.001), heparin (63.3% versus 57.5%, P < 0.001), and the combination of aspirin, heparin, and beta-blockers on admission plus aspirin at discharge (26.9% vs. 18.8%, P < 0.001). These changes were similar in all subgroups, but the greatest improvement in medication use was seen in patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital and in those with a final diagnosis of NSTEMI, i.e., with positive cardiac markers. Conversely, fewer patients in GUARANTEE who fulfilled AHCPR criteria for catheterization underwent the procedure (62.3% in GUARANTEE tertiary centers vs. 44.6% in GUARANTEE nontertiary centers vs. 66.0% in TIMI, P < 0.001). After publication of clinical guidelines for UA/NSTEMI, more patients received appropriate pharmacologic treatment, but a significant number of patients remained under-treated. Efforts to improve compliance with guideline recommendations via education and critical pathways are warranted, especially in nontertiary care settings.

Assessing the Effect of Publication of Clinical Guidelines on the Management of Unstable Angina and Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction in The TIMI III (1990???1993) and the GUARANTEE (1995???1996) Registries

Background: The clinical guidelines for unstable angina (UA) and non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) published in 1994 by the Agency for Health Care Policy Research (AHCPR) were intended to help improve treatment. No large study, however, has evaluated the effect of the guidelines on clinical practice Methods: We compared the treatment of 3,318 patients admitted with UA/NSTEMI in the preguideline Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) III Registry (1990-1993) and 2,948 patients enrolled in the postguideline Global Unstable Angina Registry and Treatment Evaluation (GUARANTEE) Registry (1995-1996). Results: More patients in GUARANTEE received guidelinerecommended medication than did those in TIMI III, specifically beta-blockers (50.9% vs. 40.7%,P< 0.001), heparin (63.3% versus 57.5%,P< 0.001), and the combination of aspirin, heparin, and beta-blockers on admission plus aspirin at discharge (26.9% vs. 18.8%,P< 0.001). These changes were similar in all subgroups, but the greatest improvement in medication use was seen in patients admitted to a tertiary care hospital and in those with a final diagnosis of NSTEMI, i.e., with positive cardiac markers. Conversely, fewer patients in GUARANTEE who fulfilled AHCPR criteria for catheterization underwent the procedure (62.3% in GUARANTEE tertiary centers vs. 44.6% in GUARANTEE nontertiary centers vs. 66.0% in TIMI,P< 0.001). Conclusion: After publication of clinical guidelines for UA/NSTEMI, more patients received appropriate pharmacologic treatment, but a significant number of patients remained under-treated. Efforts to improve compliance with guideline recommendations via education and critical pathways are warranted, especially in nontertiary care settings.

Routine second-trimester ultrasonography in the United States: A cost-benefit analysis

Objective:The objective of this study was to perform a cost-benefit analysis of routine second-trimester screening ultrasonography in the United States as compared with performing ultrasonography only in the presence of indications. Study Design:It was assumed that 1 million pregnant women are available annually who otherwise would not have an indication for an ultrasonographic examination. Cost savings from early detection and therapeutic abortion were considered only for fetal conditions for which lifetime cost estimates are available, including spina bifida, major cardiac disease, cleft lip or palate, renal agenesis or dysgenesis, urinary obstruction, lower or upper limb reduction, omphalocele, gastroschisis, and diaphragmatic hernia. Two separate cost-benefit analyses were considered with the range of fetal anomaly detection rates before 24 weeks' gestation as reported by tertiary and non-tertiary centers in the Routine Antenatal Diagnostic Imaging with Ultrasound (RADIUS) trial. Potential cost savings from averting treatment for preterm labor and postdate gestations were also considered. Results:The ratio of savings to cost was between 1.35 and 1.70 (savings of $1.35–$1.70 per $1 spent) if the ultrasonographic examinations were performed in tertiary care centers. The ratio of savings to cost was between 0.40 and 0.74 (loss of $0.26–$0.60 per $1 spent) if the examinations were performed in nontertiary centers. If the screening ultrasonography was performed in tertiary centers, the expected annual net benefits were estimated at $97 to 189 million. If ultrasonographic screening was performed in nontertiary centers, the expected annual net losses were estimated at $69 to 161 million. Conclusions:Routine second-trimester ultrasonographic screening appears to be associated with net benefits only if the ultrasonography is performed in tertiary care centers.

Six-month outcome in unstable angina patients without previous myocardial infarction according to the use of tertiary cardiologic resources

OBJECTIVESThe study assessed whether varying accessibility of patients with unstable angina (UA) to coronary angiography and revascularization determined differing usages and outcomes.BACKGROUNDThe appropriate use rate of coronary angiography and revascularization procedures in UA remains to be established.METHODSA total of 791 consecutive patients with UA without previous acute myocardial infarction (AMI) admitted to four reference teaching hospitals (one with tertiary facilities) were followed for six months. End points were six-month mortality and readmission for AMI, UA, heart failure, or severe ventricular arrhythmias.RESULTSPatients admitted to the tertiary hospital were 3.27 (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.32 to 4.62) times more likely to undergo coronary angiography after adjustment for comorbidity and severity than were those admitted to nontertiary facilities (overall six-month use rates 70.1% and 48.3%, respectively). Revascularization procedures were performed in 36.2% of patients in the tertiary hospital and 24.6% in the others (p = 0.0007); adjusted relative risk (RR) 2.37 (95% CI 1.55 to 3.63). Median delay for urgent coronary angiography was shorter in the tertiary hospital (24 h vs. 4 days, p < 0.0002). Six-month mortality and readmission rates were similar in tertiary and nontertiary hospitals: 3.9% versus 5.3% and 16.9% versus 21.2%, respectively. Adjusted RR of death or readmission for the nontertiary hospitals was 1.23 (95% CI 0.57 to 2.67).CONCLUSIONSThe use of coronary angiography and revascularization procedures in UA patients with no previous AMI is higher in tertiary than in nontertiary hospitals, but the more selective use of these procedures in nontertiary centers does not imply worse outcome.

Back Transporting Infants From Neonatal Intensive Care Units to Community Hospitals for Recovery Care: Effect on Total Hospital Charges

Many neonates are referred to neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) for specialized care far from their parents' residence. This distance can add to the stress of the parents and reduce the contact of the parents with their newborn. Small studies have found that back transporting these neonates to hospitals closer to their homes is safe and cost-effective. Despite these findings, the reluctance of many insurers to pay for back transports prevents or delays many back transports. Insurers may not consider the findings of the previous studies to be conclusive, given that the comparisons were between small numbers of neonates back transported and neonates who remained in tertiary care, and the potential for differences in severity of illness between the groups is significant. In this study the effect on hospital charges of back transports was examined by comparing the charges for care in community hospitals with what these charges would have been in a tertiary care center. The advantage of this method is that it avoids case-mix differences between the groups and thus minimizes the potential for small-sample bias. Data were collected for all back transports from a NICU to non-tertiary care centers (n = 90) for a 9-month period. We were able to obtain the itemized bills for the care at community hospitals for 42 of these patients. Each bill was recalculated using the charges for the NICU to determine potential for savings. The average charges for recovery care were about $6200 lower at the community hospital than they would have been at the NICU.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)