Effects of end-of-month admission on length of stay and quality of care among inpatients with myocardial infarction.

PURPOSE: We studied whether transfer of care when house staff and faculty switch services affects length of stay or quality of care among hospitalized patients. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis in 976 consecutive patients admitted with myocardial infarction from 1995 to 1998. Patients who were admitted within 3 days of change in staff were denoted end-of-month patients. RESULTS: Of 782 eligible patients, 690 (88%) were admitted midmonth and 92 (12%) at the end of the month. The median length of stay was 7 days for midmonth and 8 days for end-of-month patients (P = 0.06). End-of-month admission was an independent predictor of length of stay in multivariate models. In addition, a significant difference in length of stay was noted between patients admitted at the beginning and end of the academic year. There were no statistically significant differences in the use of aspirin, beta-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, or lipid-lowering agents at discharge between midmonth and end-of-month patients. Mortality and in-hospital adverse events did not differ between the two groups, with the possible exception of a greater incidence of acute renal failure in the end-of-month patients. CONCLUSIONS: Although admission during the last 3 days of the month is an independent predictor of length of stay, it does not have a large effect on quality of care among patients with myocardial infarction.

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association preoperative assessment guidelines reduce resource utilization before aortic surgery.

BACKGROUND: Methods used for evaluation of cardiac risk before noncardiac surgery vary widely. We evaluated the effect over time on practice and resource utilization of implementing the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guidelines on Preoperative Risk Assessment. METHODS: We compared 102 historical control patients who underwent elective abdominal aortic surgery (from January 1993 to December 1994) with 94 consecutive patients after guideline implementation (from July 1995 to December 1996) and 104 patients in a late after guideline implementation (from July 1, 1997, to September 30, 1998). Resource use (testing, revascularization, and costs) and outcomes (perioperative death and myocardial infarction) were examined. Patients with and without clinical markers of risk for perioperative cardiac complications were compared. RESULTS: The use of preoperative stress testing (88% to 47%; P <.00001), cardiac catheterization (24% to 11%; P <.05), and coronary revascularization (25% to 2%; P <.00001) decreased between control and postguideline groups, respectively. These changes persisted in the late postguideline group. Mean preoperative evaluation costs also fell ($1087 versus $171; P <.0001). Outcomes of death (4% versus 3% versus 2%) and myocardial infarction (7% versus 3% versus 5%) were not significantly different between control, postguideline, and late postguideline groups, respectively. Stress test rates were similar for patients at low risk versus high risk in the historical control group (84% versus 91%; P =.29) but lower for patients at low risk after guideline implementation (31% versus 61%; P =.003). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association cardiac risk assessment guidelines appropriately reduced resource use and costs in patients who underwent elective aortic surgery without affecting outcomes. This effect was sustained 2 years after guideline implementation.