ABSTRACT
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic had a significant impact on the quality of healthcare provision across all specialities and disciplines. However, there are limited data on the scale of its disruption to cardiac procedure activity from a national perspective and whether procedural outcomes different before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Major cardiac procedures (n=374,899) performed between 1st January and 31st May for the years 2018, 2019 and 2020 were analysed, stratified by procedure type and time-period (pre-COVID: January-May 2018 and 2019 and January-February 2020 and COVID: March-May 2020). Multivariable logistic regression modelling was undertaken to examine the odds ratio (OR) of 30-day mortality for procedures performed in the COVID period (vs. pre-COVID). Results: There was a deficit of 45,501 procedures during the COVID period compared to the monthly averages (March-May) in 2018–2019. Cardiac catheterisation and cardiac electronic device implantations were the most affected in terms of numbers (n=19,637 and n=10,453) while surgical procedures including mitral valve replacement, other valve replacement/repair, atrial and ventricular septal defect repair, and CABG were the most affected as a relative percentage difference (D) to previous years' averages. TAVR was the least affected (D-10.6%). No difference in 30-day mortality was observed between pre-COVID and COVID time-periods for all cardiac procedures except cardiac catheterisation (OR 1.25 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07–1.47, p=0.006) and cardiac device implantation (OR 1.35 95% CI 1.15–1.58, p<0.001). Conclusion: There was a significant decline in national cardiac procedural activity in England during the COVID-19 pandemic, with a deficit in excess of 45000 procedures over the study period. However, there was no increase in risk of mortality for most cardiac procedures performed during the pandemic. While health service pressures are gradually easing given the increased roll out of vaccination and decline in infection rates, there is a need for major restructuring of cardiac services deal with this significant backlog of procedures, which would inevitably impact longer-term morbidity and mortality. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.Figure 1
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: National audits aim to reduce variations in quality by stimulating quality improvement. However, varying provider engagement with audit data means that this is not being realised. AIM: The aim of the study was to develop and evaluate a quality dashboard (i.e. QualDash) to support clinical teams' and managers' use of national audit data. DESIGN: The study was a realist evaluation and biography of artefacts study. SETTING: The study involved five NHS acute trusts. METHODS AND RESULTS: In phase 1, we developed a theory of national audits through interviews. Data use was supported by data access, audit staff skilled to produce data visualisations, data timeliness and quality, and the importance of perceived metrics. Data were mainly used by clinical teams. Organisational-level staff questioned the legitimacy of national audits. In phase 2, QualDash was co-designed and the QualDash theory was developed. QualDash provides interactive customisable visualisations to enable the exploration of relationships between variables. Locating QualDash on site servers gave users control of data upload frequency. In phase 3, we developed an adoption strategy through focus groups. 'Champions', awareness-raising through e-bulletins and demonstrations, and quick reference tools were agreed. In phase 4, we tested the QualDash theory using a mixed-methods evaluation. Constraints on use were metric configurations that did not match users' expectations, affecting champions' willingness to promote QualDash, and limited computing resources. Easy customisability supported use. The greatest use was where data use was previously constrained. In these contexts, report preparation time was reduced and efforts to improve data quality were supported, although the interrupted time series analysis did not show improved data quality. Twenty-three questionnaires were returned, revealing positive perceptions of ease of use and usefulness. In phase 5, the feasibility of conducting a cluster randomised controlled trial of QualDash was assessed. Interviews were undertaken to understand how QualDash could be revised to support a region-wide Gold Command. Requirements included multiple real-time data sources and functionality to help to identify priorities. CONCLUSIONS: Audits seeking to widen engagement may find the following strategies beneficial: involving a range of professional groups in choosing metrics;real-time reporting;presenting 'headline' metrics important to organisational-level staff;using routinely collected clinical data to populate data fields;and dashboards that help staff to explore and report audit data. Those designing dashboards may find it beneficial to include the following: 'at a glance' visualisation of key metrics;visualisations configured in line with existing visualisations that teams use, with clear labelling;functionality that supports the creation of reports and presentations;the ability to explore relationships between variables and drill down to look at subgroups;and low requirements for computing resources. Organisations introducing a dashboard may find the following strategies beneficial: clinical champion to promote use;testing with real data by audit staff;establishing routines for integrating use into work practices;involving audit staff in adoption activities;and allowing customisation. LIMITATIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic stopped phase 4 data collection, limiting our ability to further test and refine the QualDash theory. Questionnaire results should be treated with caution because of the small, possibly biased, sample. Control sites for the interrupted time series analysis were not possible because of research and development delays. One intervention site did not submit data. Limited uptake meant that assessing the impact on more measures was not appropriate. FUTURE WORK: The extent to which national audit dashboards are used and the strategies national audits use to encourage uptake, a realist review of the impact of dashboards, and rigorous evaluations of the impact of dashboards and the effectiveness of adoption strategies should be explored. STUDY REGISTRATION: This study is registered as ISRCTN18289782. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research;Vol. 10, No. 12. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
ABSTRACT
The Covid-19 pandemic has disrupted access to health services globally for patients with non-Covid-19 conditions. We consider the condition of heart failure and describe a discrete event simulation model built to describe the impact of the pandemic and associated societal lockdowns on access to diagnosis procedures. The number of patients diagnosed with heart failure fell during the pandemic and in the UK, the number of GP referrals for diagnostic tests in November 2020 were at 20% of their pre-pandemic levels. While the numbers in the system have fallen clinicians believe that this is not reflective of a change in need, suggesting that many patients are delaying accessing care during pandemic peaks. While the effect of this is uncertain, it is thought that this could have a significant impact on patient survival. Initial results reproduce the observed increase in the number of patients waiting. © 2021 IEEE.
ABSTRACT
Background: Quality indicators (QIs) have been increasingly used as tools to assess and improve the quality of care for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, it is not known if it is feasible to use the 2020 iteration of international AMI QIs using routinely collected data and, if so, whether higher performance is associated with improved outcomes. Objective: To investigate if routine data are available to measure care quality against the 2020 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Association for Acute Cardiovascular Care (ACVC) QIs for AMI, investigate whether higher performance is associated with reduced mortality, and to report quality of care during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Cohort study of linked data from the AMI and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registries in England and Wales with outcome data from the Civil Registration of Deaths Register between 2017 and 2020 (representing 236 743 patients from 186 hospitals). Baseline ischaemic risk was estimated using the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) risk score. The likelihood of attainment for each QI based on GRACE risk was quantified using logistic regression and the association with mortality at 30 days, 6 months, 1 year and long-term (maximum 1243 days) was obtained from Cox proportional hazard models. Results: Of 26 QIs, 17 (65.3%) could be directly measured using nationwide registry data and were each inversely associated with risk-adjusted 1-year and long-term mortality. At 30 days, the measured QIs with exception of early invasive coronary angiography for non-ST elevation myocardial infarction, were associated with improved survival, and the QIs that had the greatest magnitude for a reduction in mortality were the prescription of secondary prevention medications at discharge;hazard ratio 0.13 (95% CI 0.12-0.14) for statins, 0.16 (95% CI 0.15-0.18) for adequate P2Y12 inhibition, and 0.18 (95% CI 0.17-0.20) for dual antiplatelet therapy (Figure 1). The magnitude of association between the composite QI (CQI) and survival attenuated over time, with greater long-term survival gains observed for the high GRACE risk compared with low- and intermediate-risk (Figure 2). During the first UK lockdown there was an improvement in the attainment for 62.5% of the measured QIs compared with before the COVID-19 pandemic, with a higher attainment for the CQI (43.8% to 45.2%, odds ratio 1.06, 95% CI 1.02-1.10). Conclusion: Care quality for AMI may be evaluated using routinely collected clinical data from the national registries, whereby higher performance is associated with reduced mortality. Such QIs will have a role in monitoring hospital care as demonstrated for COVID-19.