Knowledge of blood pressure levels and targets in patients with coronary artery disease in the USA.

Little is known about patient awareness of nationally recommended blood pressure targets, especially among patients with cardiac disease. To examine this issue, we interviewed 738 patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease to assess their knowledge of their systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels as well as corresponding national targets. We used bivariate and multivariate analyses to determine if any patient demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with blood pressure knowledge. Only 66.1% of patients could recall their own systolic and diastolic blood pressure levels. Only 48.9% of all patients could correctly name targets for these values. Knowledge of target blood pressure levels was particularly poor among patients who were female (odds ratio (OR) 0.69; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49-0.98), aged > or =60 years (OR 0.70, CI 0.51-0.97), without any college education (OR 0.48, CI 0.35-0.65), without a documented history of hypertension (OR 0.57, CI 0.39-0.84), and with known diabetes (OR 0.46, CI 0.33-0.66). Patients in the highest risk group, according to Joint National Committee guidelines stratification, were no more knowledgeable about their blood pressure levels and targets than lower risk patients. A significant proportion of patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease do not know their own blood pressure levels or targets. Current blood pressure education efforts appear inadequate, particularly for certain patient subgroups in which hypertension is an important modifiable risk factor.

Data feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals.

BACKGROUND: Data feedback is a fundamental component of quality improvement efforts, but previous studies provide mixed results on its effectiveness. This study illustrates the diversity of hospital based efforts at data feedback and highlights successful strategies and common pitfalls in designing and implementing data feedback to support performance improvement. METHODS: Open ended interviews with 45 clinical and administrative staff in eight US hospitals in 2000 concerning their perceptions about the effectiveness of data feedback in supporting performance improvement efforts were analysed. The hospitals were chosen to represent a range of sizes, geographical regions, and beta blocker improvement rates over a 3 year period. Data were organized and analyzed in NUD-IST 4 using the constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis. RESULTS: Although the data feedback efforts at the hospitals were diverse, the interviews suggested that seven key themes may be important: (1) data must be perceived by physicians as valid to motivate change; (2) it takes time to develop the credibility of data within a hospital; (3) the source and timeliness of data are critical to perceived validity; (4) benchmarking improves the meaningfulness of data feedback; (5) physician leaders can enhance the effectiveness of data feedback; (6) data feedback that profiles an individual physician's practices can be effective but may be perceived as punitive; (7) data feedback must persist to sustain improved performance. Embedded in several themes was the view that the effectiveness of data feedback depends not only on the quality and timeliness of the data, but also on the organizational context in which such efforts are implemented. CONCLUSIONS: Data feedback is a complex and textured concept. Data feedback strategies that might be most effective are suggested, as well as potential pitfalls in using data to promote performance improvement.

A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: Why do some hospitals succeed?

CONTEXT: Based on evidence that beta-blockers can reduce mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI), many hospitals have initiated performance improvement efforts to increase prescription of beta-blockers at discharge. Determination of the factors associated with such improvements may provide guidance to hospitals that have been less successful in increasing beta-blocker use. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that may influence the success of improvement efforts to increase beta-blocker use after AMI and to develop a taxonomy for classifying such efforts. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Qualitative study in which data were gathered from in-depth interviews conducted in March-June 2000 with 45 key physician, nursing, quality management, and administrative participants at 8 US hospitals chosen to represent a range of hospital sizes, geographic regions, and changes in beta-blocker use rates between October 1996 and September 1999. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Initiatives, strategies, and approaches to improve care for patients with AMI. RESULTS: The interviews revealed 6 broad factors that characterized hospital-based improvement efforts: goals of the efforts, administrative support, support among clinicians, design and implementation of improvement initiatives, use of data, and modifying variables. Hospitals with greater improvements in beta-blocker use over time demonstrated 4 characteristics not found in hospitals with less or no improvement: shared goals for improvement, substantial administrative support, strong physician leadership advocating beta-blocker use, and use of credible data feedback. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides a context for understanding efforts to improve care in the hospital setting by describing a taxonomy for classifying and evaluating such efforts. In addition, the study suggests possible elements of successful efforts to increase beta-blocker use for patients with AMI.

Can practice guidelines be transported effectively to different settings? Results from a multicenter interventional study.

RATIONALE: Although clinical guidelines have become increasingly popular as a means to reduce variation in care, increase efficiency, and improve patient outcomes, little is known about their effectiveness when they are transported outside their original setting, or about the factors that influence their successful translation into clinical practice. This study assessed whether a clinical guideline for low-risk chest pain patients, implemented with a standardized protocol, could be effectively transported to five hospital settings. METHODS: In a prospective, interventional trial, a standardized protocol for low-risk chest pain was implemented at each site. A total of 553 consecutively hospitalized low-risk patients with chest pain were enrolled during a 3-month baseline period followed by a standardized 6-month intervention period. During the intervention period, each patient's physician was contacted about eligibility for discharge within the specified 2-day guideline period. Guideline adherence (discharged within 48 hours) and postdischarge patient outcomes were measured. Local guideline champions were interviewed about their implementation experience. RESULTS: Guideline adherence during the intervention period ranged from 61% to 100%, with only two sites achieving significant increases of > or = 10% from the baseline values. Guideline implementation did not affect clinical outcomes or patient satisfaction. Implementation factors such as preexisting hospital environment, implementation team staffing, and the rapid identification and resolution of barriers may influence the successful translation of guidelines into practice. CONCLUSIONS: Even with a standardized implementation protocol, consistent results across institutions were not obtained when a clinical guideline for chest pain was implemented beyond its original setting. These findings demonstrate the importance of understanding the local factors that influence guideline implementation.