Abstract P121: Comparison of the Utilization of Evidence-Based Therapies and Clinical Outcomes Between Teaching and Non-Teaching Medical Services After the Implementation of Novel Clinical Pathways for the Management of Cardiac Patients

Autor: Emad F Aziz, Balaji Pratap, Omar Wever-pinzon, Fahad Javed, Yoon K Yang, Kiran K Kalal, Venkat Rao, Resmi Premji, Putun patel, Andre Tojino, Jeannette Huaman, Yosef Chodakiewitz, Eyal Herzog
Rok vydání: 2011
Předmět:
Zdroj: Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes. 4
ISSN: 1941-7705
1941-7713
DOI: 10.1161/circoutcomes.4.suppl_1.ap121
Popis: PURPOSE To compare the utilization of evidence-based (EB) cardiac therapies and clinical outcomes of cardiac care on general medicine inpatient services under teaching and nonteaching services at an academic hospital. METHODS In 2005 we implemented the Advanced Cardiac Admission Protocol (ACAP) for all cardiac patients admitted to our hospital. 4170 patients were admitted with ACS or HF were assigned to a resident-staffed teaching service ( n = 3890) or to a hospitalist-nonteaching service ( n = 280). We compared utilization of EB therapies, hospital readmission rate at 30 days, length of hospital stay (LOS), and all-cause mortality at 90 days. RESULTS The cohort mean age was 63 ± 15 years, 55% males. 34% had diabetes, 74% were hypertensive and 41% had hyperlipidemia. Mean LVEF was 50 ± 22% and mean TIMI risk score was 2.7 ± 1.5. There were no difference between both services in regards to the utilization of all EB therapies, BB (62 vs. 63%), ACEi (56 vs. 57%), ASA (83 vs. 80%), anticoagulation (58 vs. 63) and Statins (68 vs. 67%). Clinical outcomes including LOS (4.95 days vs. 5.14 days; P = .24), readmission rate (10.5% vs. 11%; P = .21), and all-cause mortality (4.0% vs. 3.4%; P = .64) were similar. CONCLUSIONS At our academic hospital, implementation of a standardized novel pathway for cardiac patients led to comparable outcomes between teaching and nonteaching services.
Databáze: OpenAIRE
Externí odkaz: