0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Association Between Hospital Process Composite Performance and Patient Outcomes After In-Hospital Cardiac Arrest Care FREE

Monique L. Anderson, MD, MHS1; Graham Nichol, MD, MPH2; David Dai, PhD1; Paul S. Chan, MD, MSc3; Laine Thomas, PhD1; Sana M. Al-Khatib, MD, MHS1; Robert A. Berg, MD4; Steven M. Bradley, MD, MPH5,6; Eric D. Peterson, MD, MPH1 ; for the American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators
[+] Author Affiliations
1Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina
2Department of Medicine, University of Washington–Harborview Center for Prehospital Emergency Care, University of Washington, Seattle
3Department of Medicine, Saint Luke’s Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, Missouri
4Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
5Veteran Affairs Eastern Colorado Health Care System, Denver
6Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora
JAMA Cardiol. 2016;1(1):37-45. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0275.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  Survival rates after in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) vary significantly among US centers; whether this variation is owing to differences in IHCA care quality is unknown.

Objective  To evaluate hospital-level variation to determine whether hospital process composite performance measures of IHCA care quality are associated with patient outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Using data from the American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation (GWTG-R) program, we analyzed 35 283 patients 18 years or older with IHCA treated at 261 US hospitals from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012. We calculated the hospital process composite performance score for IHCA using 5 guideline-recommended process measures. Opportunity-based scores were calculated for all patients, aggregated at the hospital level, divided into quartiles, and then associated with risk-standardized survival and neurologic status by a test for trend. The scores were then evaluated through hierarchical logistic regression and reported as odds ratios per 10% increment in hospital process composite performance.

Interventions  Acute care treatments for IHCA.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The primary outcome was survival to discharge measured as risk standard survival rates, and the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic status at hospital discharge.

Results  Of the 35 283 adults included in this study, the median age was 67 years (interquartile range [IQR] 56-78 years), and 57.9% were male. The median IHCA hospital process composite performance was 89.7% (interquartile range, 85.4%-93.1%) and varied among hospital quartiles from 82.6% (lowest) to 94.8% (highest). The IHCA hospital process composite performance was linearly associated with risk-standardized hospital survival to discharge rates: 21.1%, 21.4%, 22.8%, and 23.4% from lowest to highest performance quartiles, respectively (P < .001). After adjustment, each 10% increase in a hospital’s process composite performance was associated with a 22% higher odds of survival (adjusted odds ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.37; P = .01). Hospital process composite quality performance was also associated with favorable neurologic status at discharge (P = .004).

Conclusions and Relevance  The quality of guideline-based care for IHCA varies significantly among US hospitals and is associated with patient survival and neurologic outcomes.

Figures in this Article

More than 200 000 patients are treated for in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) annually in the United States.1,2 In-hospital cardiac arrest is associated with poor survival, yet survival to discharge rates vary significantly among US hospitals.3 Some process-of-care measures, such as shorter time to defibrillation, are associated with better survival after IHCA.46 The Joint Commission, National Quality Forum, and American Heart Association (AHA) have expressed significant interest in developing performance measures specific to IHCA in the hopes of facilitating benchmarking and ultimately improving patient outcomes.7 An AHA consensus statement identified several strategies for improving survival from cardiac arrest and pinpointed best practices related to structure, care pathways, and quality improvement care opportunities.1

We conducted this study to examine (1) the variability in IHCA process quality of care across US hospitals and (2) whether there is an association between a hospital measure of IHCA process quality of care and patient outcomes. To our knowledge, no previous study has examined variation between IHCA quality of care and patient outcomes using a hospital process composite performance measure. Understanding the association between process and survival may clarify the utility of these process measures to inform hospital-level quality for IHCA care.

Data Source

The AHA’s Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation (GWTG-R) program is an ongoing, prospective, hospital-based clinical registry and quality improvement program for patients with IHCA. This registry was created to (1) collect cardiac resuscitation care and outcomes data from hospitals and (2) generate evidence-based guidelines.

The design of the GWTG-R has been previously described in detail.8 Briefly, all patients with a confirmed IHCA (defined as apnea, unresponsiveness, and lack of a palpable central pulse) who received cardiopulmonary resuscitation are identified and enrolled by staff at participating hospitals. Cases are recognized by centralized collection of cardiac arrest flow sheets, review of hospital paging-system logs, routine checks of code carts (carts stocked with emergency medications and equipment), pharmacy tracer drug records, and hospital billing charges for code-cart charges. The GWTG-R uses standardized Utstein Style definitions for clinical variables and outcomes. Utstein Style refers to consensus reporting guidelines for cardiac resuscitation. Utstein Style originated from an international multidisciplinary meeting in 1990 and has been updated several times.9,10 Data completeness and accuracy are ensured by rigorous training, certification of hospital staff, and the use of standardized software with internal data checks.8,11 A prior report8 shows an error rate in data abstraction of 2.4. This study was approved by the Duke University Institutional Review Board. The requirement for informed consent was waived.

Study Population

From January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, we identified 48 189 adults aged 18 years or older with IHCA across 351 US GWTG-R hospitals. To avoid inflation in variance owing to small numbers, patients were excluded if they were enrolled at sites with fewer than 20 admissions overall, had a mean of fewer than 5 cardiac arrests per year, or had participated in the GWTG-R for less than a year (eTable 1 in the Supplement). In addition, we excluded hospitals whose hospital characteristics were missing (n = 16). Only the index cardiac arrest for each patient was included in this analysis. Within the GWTG-R hospitals, we excluded cardiac arrests that occurred in operating rooms, procedural suites, and the emergency department because these arrests are known to be different and to have a survival advantage compared with those that occur in wards and intensive care units (eTable 1 in the Supplement). After these exclusions, our final study population included 35 283 patients from 261 GWTG-R hospitals.

Statistical Analysis

Five American College of Cardiology/AHA guideline–recommended acute care resuscitation process measures were evaluated among individuals who were eligible to receive them. The guideline-recommended process-of-care measures chosen a priori by consensus of our research team were as follows: (1) device confirmation of correct endotracheal tube placement,5 (2) a monitored or witnessed cardiac arrest event,6 (3) time to first chest compression less than or equal to 1 minute, (4) time to first defibrillation delivered at less than or equal to 2 minutes for ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF),4 and (5) administration of epinephrine or vasopressin for pulseless events (pulseless VT or VF or pulseless electrical activity or asystole) within 5 minutes.12 These 5 measures were chosen based on standard guideline recommendations, evidence of the association of individual measure with outcome,46 and completeness of data.12 Inclusion and exclusion criteria for each process measure were defined according to standard eligibility definitions for IHCA put forth by the AHA for the GWTG-R (eTable 2 in the Supplement). Another measure, time to second defibrillation greater than 2 minutes, was considered for inclusion in this study but was removed at the request of the AHA GWTG-R task force after an observational analysis called into question the practice of withholding shocks for at least 2 minutes to allow for cardiopulmonary resuscitation. In addition, 3 measures were not selected for inclusion given suspected universal adherence: time to assisted ventilation, chest compressions provided, and defibrillation shock provided.

Hospital process composite performance scores were calculated using opportunity-based scoring, which is defined as the sum of correct care divided by total care opportunities.13 Each patient at a GWTG-R hospital contributed care opportunities to the relevant hospital’s overall composite performance score.14 Each patient, depending on the initial rhythm, could contribute a maximum of 4 (nonshockable) or 5 (shockable) opportunities to the model. For example, if a patient arrested and had a shockable rhythm during rhythm analysis, then he or she would potentially be eligible to contribute all 5 care opportunities to the hospital’s performance score. If correct care only occurred for the monitored or witnessed event and time to defibrillation was less than 2 minutes, then only 2 of the 5 opportunities were counted as received. In contrast, a patient with pulseless electrical activity or asystole as an initial rhythm would only contribute a maximum of 4 opportunities to the model. Opportunity scoring implicitly weights each measure in proportion to the percentage of eligible patients at each hospital.13 Hospitals were divided into equal quartiles after rank-ordering of hospital process composite performance scores.

Demographic, cardiac arrest event, and hospital characteristics were compared by hospital performance quartiles. Individual process measures (eligibility and received) were also compared across performance quartiles. Pearson χ2 tests were used to compare categorical variables across hospital performance quartiles; Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare continuous variables across hospital performance quartiles. Categorical variables were presented as percentages, and continuous variables were presented as medians and interquartile ranges (IQRs). Cochran-Armitage trend tests were used to compare differences across quartiles for individual performance measures. The primary outcome of interest was survival to discharge measured as risk-standardized survival rates (RSSRs), and the secondary outcome was favorable neurologic status at hospital discharge.

The RSSRs were calculated based on a previously validated model, which was developed to facilitate comparisons across hospitals.15 Validation and derivation characteristics for this model have been previously described.15 According to this method, the RSSR was calculated for each hospital by dividing a hospital’s predicted survival by the expected survival, multiplied by the cohort’s unadjusted survival. Survival to discharge was modeled by hierarchical logistic regression, including patient risk factors as fixed effects and a random intercept for hospitals. Hospital-level predicted survival was calculated as the mean of model-based predictions across patients at a given hospital, including an empirical Bayes prediction of the hospital effect.16,17 Hospital-level expected survival was calculated in the same way, using only the fixed-effects portion of the model, with the hospital effect set equal to 0 (representing a typical hospital). This same process was implemented to obtain the RSSR with patients grouped by hospital quartile. The full model included the following risk factors: age, sex, event location, initial cardiac arrest rhythm, myocardial infarction present on admission, prior heart failure, renal insufficiency, hepatic insufficiency, hypotension, septicemia, acute stroke, diabetes mellitus, metabolic or electrolyte abnormality, metastatic or hematologic malignant tumor, major trauma, mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and intravenous vasopressor use. Race was not included in the published RSSR model because it is associated with the quality of the treating hospital.15 We performed a sensitivity analysis, adding race to the RSSR model, to determine whether its addition attenuated the association between quality of care and outcomes (eTable 3 in the Supplement). Patient race was self-identified and abstracted from the medical records by the GWTG-R staff. Differences in hospital RSSR and risk-adjusted favorable neurologic status across hospital process composite performance quartiles were assessed using linear regression weighted by the number of patients within a hospital to address nonconstant variance.

Differences between unadjusted outcomes across hospital process composite performance quartiles were assessed by linear regression weighted by the number of patients at each site. The association between hospital process composite performance and risk-adjusted survival was also evaluated directly through hierarchical logistic regression. Specifically, the hospital process composite performance score was added as a continuous covariate to the hierarchical model described above. Variables included in this model were age, race, sex, event location, initial cardiac arrest rhythm, whether myocardial infarction was present on admission, prior heart failure, renal insufficiency, hepatic insufficiency, hypotension, septicemia, acute stroke, diabetes, metabolic or electrolyte abnormality, metastatic or hematologic malignant tumor, major trauma, mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and intravenous vasopressor use. The linear association with survival was tested by a χ2 test, and odds ratios (ORs) were reported per 10% increment in hospital process composite performance score. This approach differs from the previous assessment of the RSSRs in that the linear association is evaluated on the log-odds scale rather than the absolute scale.

To determine the number of lives that could be saved if all hospitals operated at the level of the best-performing hospital, we first identified the best-performing hospital as the one with the highest risk-adjusted survival. From the full covariate-adjusted hierarchical model, we estimated the effect of being treated at this hospital. For all patients in the data set, we used the hierarchical model to predict their survival probability given their fixed covariates and the best hospital effect. The predictions were summed over all patients in the sample to estimate the overall predicted survival if all patients were treated at the best hospital.

Favorable neurologic status at discharge was assessed as a secondary outcome for each patient with cardiac arrest. Cerebral performance categories (CPCs) are defined as follows: 1, good cerebral performance; 2, moderate disability; 3, severe disability; 4, coma or vegetative state; and 5, brain death. Favorable neurologic status was defined according to Utstein Style criteria as having a CPC score of 1 or 2 at hospital discharge and is defined according to Utstein Style criteria.10 We also report clinically significant favorable neurologic status with a CPC score of 1 (eTable 4 in the Supplement).

In our analysis, the missing CPC score rate was 17.7%, which aligns with previously published estimates4,6 of missing CPC data in the GWTG-R. After a histogram review, we discovered that several hospitals were missing more than 50% of CPC data (eFigure 1 in the Supplement). As a result, we excluded hospitals with less than 75% of CPC scores available for their patients (n = 88) for this secondary analysis. The subsequent missing discharge CPC score rate among 173 hospitals was 2.3%.

To avoid survivor bias and to facilitate adequate hospital-level comparisons for neurologic status, all patients were included in this analysis. Patients who died during the hospitalization were assigned a CPC score of 5 (brain death).

C indexes were calculated to determine model diagnostics. The C index for calculation of predicted survival for the RSSR rates is 0.694 and 0.704 for risk-standardized favorable neurologic status. After race is added to the aforementioned models for the sensitivity analysis, C indexes were 0.697 for predicted survival in the RSSR and 0.708 for favorable neurologic status. For our continuous risk-adjusted models, the C indexes are 0.716 and 0.733 for survival and favorable neurologic status, respectively. All P values were 2-tailed and significant at P < .05.

Our analysis included 35 283 patients with IHCA from 261 GWTG-R hospitals from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012. The overall population eligible for each measure ranged from 14.5% for time to defibrillation of 2 minutes or less to 97.0% for time to first compressions of 1 minute or less (Table 1). The median hospital process composite performance score was 89.7% (IQR, 85.4%-93.1%). The hospital process composite performance varied significantly among the GWTG-R hospitals and ranged from 47.6% to 94.2% (Figure 1). Hospitals in quartiles 1, 2, 3, and 4 had median hospital process composite performance scores of 82.6% (IQR, 78.9%-84.3%), 88.0% (IQR, 86.7%-88.9%), 91.5% (IQR, 90.4%-92.3%), and 94.8% (IQR, 93.9%-95.9%), respectively (eFigure 2 in the Supplement).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Variation in Adherence to Individual Guideline-Recommended Process Measures by Hospital Process Composite Performance Quartiles
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Hospital Process Composite Performance Scores

Frequency distribution of hospital process composite performance scores in the Get With The Guidelines–Resuscitation hospital cohort.

Graphic Jump Location

Table 1 reveals the variation in use of individual guideline-recommended IHCA process quality-of-care measures among patients in our cohort. Hospitals in the highest quartile for the hospital process composite performance had significantly higher adherence to all individual guideline measures for IHCA compared with hospitals in other quartiles. There was significant variability in adherence to guideline-recommended IHCA process quality-of-care measures. The greatest increase across quartiles for hospital performance of individual measures was seen for confirmation of endotracheal tube placement (70.8% in quartile 1 to 94.3% in quartile 4, P = .01) and first defibrillation shock at 2 minutes or less for VT or VF (49.4% in quartile 1 to 66.5% in quartile 4, P = .01). The measures with the greatest overall adherence and the lowest degree of variance (although significant) were (1) monitored or witnessed cardiac events (P for increase across quartiles = .004) and (2) time to first compressions of 1 minute or less (P for increase across quartiles = .01) (Table 1).

Table 2 and Table 3 list the baseline characteristics of patients and hospitals within each quartile of hospital process composite performance. Compared with patients treated at hospitals in the lowest hospital process composite performance quartile, patients at the hospitals in the highest hospital process composite performance quartile were younger, slightly less likely to be male, more likely to be black, and less likely to have VT or VF at the time of cardiac arrest. Patients at the hospitals in the highest hospital process composite performance quartile were more likely to be in the intensive care unit at the time of arrest, less likely to have cardiac arrests at night, and more likely to undergo interventions, such as mechanical ventilation, hemodialysis, vasopressors, arterial catheters, and vascular access.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Baseline Patient Characteristics by Hospital Performance Quartilea
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Baseline Hospital Characteristics by Hospital Performance Quartilea

Compared with hospitals in the lowest hospital process composite performance quartile, hospitals in the highest hospital process composite performance quartile were more likely to have cardiac surgery capabilities and more likely to be teaching hospitals. Best-performing hospitals were also more likely to have a mean medium and large number of hospital beds (Table 3).

Unadjusted survival to discharge was 22.4% overall, ranging from 20.7% in the lowest quartile to 23.6% in the highest quartile (P < .001) (Table 4). After patient and event characteristics were adjusted for, the RSSRs were 21.1%, 21.4%, 22.8%, and 23.4% from lowest to highest quartile, respectively (P < .001 for trend) (Figure 2). Each 10% increase in hospital process composite performance was associated with a 22% higher adjusted odds of survival (adjusted OR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.08-1.37; P = .01) (Table 4).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.  Outcomes of IHCA for GWTG-R Cohort
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Risk-Standardized Survival Rates

Risk-standardized survival rates by performance quartile for patients treated at Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation (GWTG-R) hospitals. P < .001 for trend.

Graphic Jump Location

Significant differences were also found in favorable neurologic status at discharge based on hospital process quality of care, with hospitals in the highest hospital process composite performance quartile having the highest percentage of patients with favorable neurologic status. After adjustment, favorable neurologic status was 17.7%, 17.0%, 17.5%, and 19.9% from the lowest to highest quartile, respectively (P < .001 for trend; Table 4 and eTable 4 in the Supplement). A sensitivity analysis of patients with a CPC score of 1 (clinically significant favorable neurologic status) also revealed improved neurologic status by hospital process composite performance quartiles (eTable 4 in the Supplement).

Successful treatment of IHCA requires rapid implementation of several processes of care within a short and defined period.1,12 We found significant variation in process quality-of-care achievement for patients with IHCA treated at US hospitals. Furthermore, we found that patients treated at hospitals with greater adherence to IHCA guideline–recommended therapies had higher survival rates. The association between process quality-of-care measures and outcomes was evident after adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics. We estimate that an additional 22 990 to 24 200 lives could be saved if all hospitals had similar IHCA quality to that of the best-performing hospitals.

Time to defibrillation has been established as an important measure for IHCA care. Patients with VT or VF with timely defibrillation (ie, within 2 minutes) were 50% more likely to survive compared with patients who had delays in defibrillation.4 Previous work3 has also demonstrated a link between variation in hospital performance with time to defibrillation and survival. Hospitals with the best performance for timely defibrillation had 41% higher adjusted survival compared with the worst-performing hospitals (quartile comparisons).3 We found significant variation not only in time to defibrillation but also in other processes of guideline-recommended acute care for IHCA.

Our cross-sectional analysis supports an association between greater adherence to process measures for IHCA and higher survival rates. Every 10% increase in hospital process composite performance measures among hospitals in our analysis was associated with a 1.22 higher adjusted odds of survival. An association between hospital process composite performance and outcomes has been demonstrated for other cardiovascular conditions, such as acute stroke, heart failure, and myocardial infarction care.14,1820 However, a previous analysis21 revealed that hospitals with better outcomes for heart failure, acute myocardial infarction, and pneumonia did not have the best survival for IHCA. In light of this information, the authors of the previous study concluded that public reporting of IHCA measures could provide new information on hospital quality. We found that process measures for IHCA care vary appreciably and are significantly associated with survival and neurologic outcome. The Joint Commission and National Quality Forum have proposed performance measures for IHCA care, including survival to discharge, time to defibrillation, and endotracheal tube confirmation. Our work supports the importance of addressing the process quality of IHCA care. We found that several of these process measures contribute important information related to clinical outcomes. As a result, a hospital process composite performance score used with other medical conditions (eg, congestive heart failure, coronary artery disease)14,22,23 may be a more appropriate measure of quality of care for patients with IHCA.

In our analysis, we estimated that predicted survival to discharge of the best-performing hospital was 34.5% (compared with an observed survival of 22.4%). On the basis of an estimated 190 000 to 200 000 IHCAs per year in the United States, we estimate an additional 22 990 to 24 200 lives would be saved per year if all hospitals operated at the level of the highest-performing hospital. Although this is an estimate only, it helps to shed light on the effect of ensuring timely and high-quality care for IHCA.

Our study has several limitations. First, our data are observational; therefore, we cannot prove causation between process-of-care measures and outcomes. In addition, we cannot be sure that unmeasured confounders may have contributed to the association between composite quality of care and outcomes. Second, hospitals participating in the GWTG-R may be more interested in improving quality of care compared with nonparticipating hospitals. Although our sample may not be generalizable to all US hospitals, the degree of variability in actual process quality may be even greater among all US hospitals because the GWTG-R hospitals are self-selected with a presumed greater interest in improving outcomes from IHCA. Third, our secondary outcome of neurologic function was only analyzed among a subset of hospitals that did not have large amounts of missing data (173 of 261 hospitals), which may further limit generalizability and interpretation to hospitals that routinely collect CPC data on most of their patients with cardiac arrest. Fourth, we included 5 guideline-recommended process measures to create our hospital process composite performance score. Although we carefully chose measures based on the 2010 AHA guideline recommendations and the availability and completeness of data, we acknowledge that other processes or structural measures may be more or less associated with survival and neurologic outcomes. Fifth, we restricted our analysis to data collected from January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2012, to account for secular trends in survival to discharge (survival known to be lower in earlier years). Sixth, each measure was weighted equally in our analysis, yet some measures may be more associated with outcomes than others. Nonetheless, hospital process composite performance measures developed for other measures have treated individual measures similarly. Seventh, hospital variability in obtaining do-not-attempt-resuscitation (DNAR) orders before cardiac arrest likely influences a hospital’s survival rate such that hospitals with the best survival rates may be more aggressive in obtaining DNAR orders. The GWTG-R does not include patients in its registry if they have DNAR orders before their IHCA; however, we did not find that better-performing hospitals were more likely than their counterparts to establish DNAR orders during the hospitalization (eTable 5 in the Supplement). Eighth, we used standard definitions provided by the AHA’s GWTG-R to determine the population inclusion and exclusion criteria for each guideline measure. We acknowledge that the population inclusion for these measures may change over time as a result of expert consensus or new evidence, yet our analysis closely mimics feedback provided to each GWTG-R hospital for each measure and reflects consensus of the measure at the time of our analysis. Ninth, our data represent a cross-sectional association between adherence to process quality and outcomes. A longitudinal study accounting for change in hospital process performance is needed to establish an association between quality and outcomes.

Significant opportunities remain for improving adherence to guideline-recommended care overall and with individual process-of-care measures. Of importance, enhancing process quality of care may improve outcomes for the many patients with IHCA.

Accepted for Publication: November 20, 2015.

Corresponding Author: Monique L. Anderson, MD, MHS, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, 7022 N Pavilion, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715 (monique.anderson@duke.edu).

Published Online: February 24, 2016. doi:10.1001/jamacardio.2015.0275.

Author Contributions: Dr Anderson had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: Anderson, Nichol, Berg, Bradley.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Anderson, Nichol.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Anderson, Dai, Thomas.

Obtained funding: Anderson.

Study supervision: Nichol, Berg, Peterson.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: All authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Dr Chan reported receiving funding from grant 1R01HL123980 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr Peterson reported receiving industry funding from Janssen and consulting funding from Boehringer Ingelheim, Janssen, Sanofi, Bayer, Merck, and AstraZeneca. No other disclosures were reported.

Funding/Support: This study was supported by the Duke Clinical Research Institute (Durham, North Carolina). Dr Anderson is personally funded by the following career development award: National Institutes of Health Common Fund research supplements to promote diversity in health-related research under award 3U54AT007748-02S1.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The Duke Clinical Research Institute is responsible for the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Group Information: American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators are listed in the eAppendix in the Supplement.

Additional Contributions: We thank Barbara Lytle, MS, for her project leadership and Erin Hanley, MS, for her editorial contributions to the manuscript. Neither Ms Lytle nor Ms Hanley received compensation for their contributions apart from their employment at the institution where this study was conducted. Ms Lytle and Ms Hanley are employees of the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.

Morrison  LJ, Neumar  RW, Zimmerman  JL,  et al; American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.  Strategies for improving survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States: 2013 consensus recommendations: a consensus statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127(14):1538-1563.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Merchant  RM, Yang  L, Becker  LB,  et al; American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Investigators.  Incidence of treated cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(11):2401-2406.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chan  PS, Nichol  G, Krumholz  HM, Spertus  JA, Nallamothu  BK; American Heart Association National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (NRCPR) Investigators.  Hospital variation in time to defibrillation after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(14):1265-1273.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chan  PS, Krumholz  HM, Nichol  G, Nallamothu  BK; American Heart Association National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Investigators.  Delayed time to defibrillation after in-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(1):9-17.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Phelan  MP, Ornato  JP, Peberdy  MA, Hustey  FM; American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Investigators.  Appropriate documentation of confirmation of endotracheal tube position and relationship to patient outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2013;84(1):31-36.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brady  WJ, Gurka  KK, Mehring  B, Peberdy  MA, O’Connor  RE; American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines (formerly, NRCPR) Investigators.  In-hospital cardiac arrest: impact of monitoring and witnessed event on patient survival and neurologic status at hospital discharge. Resuscitation. 2011;82(7):845-852.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Al-Khatib  SM, Fonarow  GC, Hayes  DL,  et al.  Performance measures to promote quality improvement in sudden cardiac arrest prevention and treatment. Am Heart J. 2013;165(6):862-868.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peberdy  MA, Kaye  W, Ornato  JP,  et al.  Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of adults in the hospital: a report of 14 720 cardiac arrests from the National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2003;58(3):297-308.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cummins  RO, Chamberlain  DA, Abramson  NS,  et al.  Recommended guidelines for uniform reporting of data from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the Utstein Style: a statement for health professionals from a task force of the American Heart Association, the European Resuscitation Council, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the Australian Resuscitation Council. Circulation. 1991;84(2):960-975.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Perkins  GD, Jacobs  IG, Nadkarni  VM,  et al.  Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome reports: update of the Utstein Resuscitation Registry Templates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (American Heart Association, European Resuscitation Council, Australian and New Zealand Council on Resuscitation, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, InterAmerican Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa, Resuscitation Council of Asia) and the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;96:328-340.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peberdy  MA, Ornato  JP, Larkin  GL,  et al; National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Investigators.  Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest during nights and weekends. JAMA. 2008;299(7):785-792.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Neumar  RW, Otto  CW, Link  MS,  et al.  Part 8: adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2010;122(18)(suppl 3):S729-S767.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peterson  ED, DeLong  ER, Masoudi  FA,  et al.  ACCF/AHA 2010 position statement on composite measures for healthcare performance assessment: a report of American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop a Position Statement on Composite Measures). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(16):1755-1766.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peterson  ED, Roe  MT, Mulgund  J,  et al.  Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2006;295(16):1912-1920.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chan  PS, Berg  RA, Spertus  JA,  et al; AHA GWTG-Resuscitation Investigators.  Risk-standardizing survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest to facilitate hospital comparisons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(7):601-609.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
O’Brien  SM, Delong  ER, Peterson  ED.  Impact of case volume on hospital performance assessment. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1277-1284.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Normand  ST, Shahian  DM.  Statistical and clinical aspects of hospital outcomes profiling. Stat Sci. 2007;22(2):206-226.
Link to Article
Hernandez  AF, Fonarow  GC, Liang  L, Heidenreich  PA, Yancy  C, Peterson  ED.  The need for multiple measures of hospital quality: results from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;124(6):712-719.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shahian  DM, O’Brien  SM, Normand  SL, Peterson  ED, Edwards  FH.  Association of hospital coronary artery bypass volume with processes of care, mortality, morbidity, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons composite quality score. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139(2):273-282.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wang  TY, Dai  D, Hernandez  AF,  et al.  The importance of consistent, high-quality acute myocardial infarction and heart failure care results from the American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines Program. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(6):637-644.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chen  LM, Nallamothu  BK, Krumholz  HM, Spertus  JA, Tang  F, Chan  PS; American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation Investigators.  Association between a hospital’s quality performance for in-hospital cardiac arrest and common medical conditions. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(6):700-707.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Eapen  ZJ, Fonarow  GC, Dai  D,  et al; Get With the Guidelines Steering Committee and Hospitals.  Comparison of composite measure methodologies for rewarding quality of care: an analysis from the American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines program. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(6):610-618.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ambardekar  AV, Fonarow  GC, Dai  D,  et al; Get With The Guidelines Steering Committee and Hospitals.  Quality of care and in-hospital outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease in rural and urban hospitals (from Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease program). Am J Cardiol. 2010;105(2):139-143.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
Hospital Process Composite Performance Scores

Frequency distribution of hospital process composite performance scores in the Get With The Guidelines–Resuscitation hospital cohort.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
Risk-Standardized Survival Rates

Risk-standardized survival rates by performance quartile for patients treated at Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation (GWTG-R) hospitals. P < .001 for trend.

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Variation in Adherence to Individual Guideline-Recommended Process Measures by Hospital Process Composite Performance Quartiles
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Baseline Patient Characteristics by Hospital Performance Quartilea
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 3.  Baseline Hospital Characteristics by Hospital Performance Quartilea
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 4.  Outcomes of IHCA for GWTG-R Cohort

References

Morrison  LJ, Neumar  RW, Zimmerman  JL,  et al; American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee, Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation, Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease.  Strategies for improving survival after in-hospital cardiac arrest in the United States: 2013 consensus recommendations: a consensus statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2013;127(14):1538-1563.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Merchant  RM, Yang  L, Becker  LB,  et al; American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Investigators.  Incidence of treated cardiac arrest in hospitalized patients in the United States. Crit Care Med. 2011;39(11):2401-2406.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chan  PS, Nichol  G, Krumholz  HM, Spertus  JA, Nallamothu  BK; American Heart Association National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (NRCPR) Investigators.  Hospital variation in time to defibrillation after in-hospital cardiac arrest. Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(14):1265-1273.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chan  PS, Krumholz  HM, Nichol  G, Nallamothu  BK; American Heart Association National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Investigators.  Delayed time to defibrillation after in-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(1):9-17.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Phelan  MP, Ornato  JP, Peberdy  MA, Hustey  FM; American Heart Association’s Get With The Guidelines-Resuscitation Investigators.  Appropriate documentation of confirmation of endotracheal tube position and relationship to patient outcome from in-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2013;84(1):31-36.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Brady  WJ, Gurka  KK, Mehring  B, Peberdy  MA, O’Connor  RE; American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines (formerly, NRCPR) Investigators.  In-hospital cardiac arrest: impact of monitoring and witnessed event on patient survival and neurologic status at hospital discharge. Resuscitation. 2011;82(7):845-852.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Al-Khatib  SM, Fonarow  GC, Hayes  DL,  et al.  Performance measures to promote quality improvement in sudden cardiac arrest prevention and treatment. Am Heart J. 2013;165(6):862-868.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peberdy  MA, Kaye  W, Ornato  JP,  et al.  Cardiopulmonary resuscitation of adults in the hospital: a report of 14 720 cardiac arrests from the National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2003;58(3):297-308.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Cummins  RO, Chamberlain  DA, Abramson  NS,  et al.  Recommended guidelines for uniform reporting of data from out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: the Utstein Style: a statement for health professionals from a task force of the American Heart Association, the European Resuscitation Council, the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, and the Australian Resuscitation Council. Circulation. 1991;84(2):960-975.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Perkins  GD, Jacobs  IG, Nadkarni  VM,  et al.  Cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation outcome reports: update of the Utstein Resuscitation Registry Templates for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a statement for healthcare professionals from a task force of the International Liaison Committee on Resuscitation (American Heart Association, European Resuscitation Council, Australian and New Zealand Council on Resuscitation, Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada, InterAmerican Heart Foundation, Resuscitation Council of Southern Africa, Resuscitation Council of Asia) and the American Heart Association Emergency Cardiovascular Care Committee and the Council on Cardiopulmonary, Critical Care, Perioperative and Resuscitation. Resuscitation. 2015;96:328-340.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peberdy  MA, Ornato  JP, Larkin  GL,  et al; National Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Investigators.  Survival from in-hospital cardiac arrest during nights and weekends. JAMA. 2008;299(7):785-792.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Neumar  RW, Otto  CW, Link  MS,  et al.  Part 8: adult advanced cardiovascular life support: 2010 American Heart Association Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care. Circulation. 2010;122(18)(suppl 3):S729-S767.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peterson  ED, DeLong  ER, Masoudi  FA,  et al.  ACCF/AHA 2010 position statement on composite measures for healthcare performance assessment: a report of American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures (Writing Committee to Develop a Position Statement on Composite Measures). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55(16):1755-1766.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Peterson  ED, Roe  MT, Mulgund  J,  et al.  Association between hospital process performance and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndromes. JAMA. 2006;295(16):1912-1920.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chan  PS, Berg  RA, Spertus  JA,  et al; AHA GWTG-Resuscitation Investigators.  Risk-standardizing survival for in-hospital cardiac arrest to facilitate hospital comparisons. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(7):601-609.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
O’Brien  SM, Delong  ER, Peterson  ED.  Impact of case volume on hospital performance assessment. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(12):1277-1284.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Normand  ST, Shahian  DM.  Statistical and clinical aspects of hospital outcomes profiling. Stat Sci. 2007;22(2):206-226.
Link to Article
Hernandez  AF, Fonarow  GC, Liang  L, Heidenreich  PA, Yancy  C, Peterson  ED.  The need for multiple measures of hospital quality: results from the Get With the Guidelines-Heart Failure Registry of the American Heart Association. Circulation. 2011;124(6):712-719.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Shahian  DM, O’Brien  SM, Normand  SL, Peterson  ED, Edwards  FH.  Association of hospital coronary artery bypass volume with processes of care, mortality, morbidity, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons composite quality score. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010;139(2):273-282.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Wang  TY, Dai  D, Hernandez  AF,  et al.  The importance of consistent, high-quality acute myocardial infarction and heart failure care results from the American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines Program. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58(6):637-644.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Chen  LM, Nallamothu  BK, Krumholz  HM, Spertus  JA, Tang  F, Chan  PS; American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines-Resuscitation Investigators.  Association between a hospital’s quality performance for in-hospital cardiac arrest and common medical conditions. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2013;6(6):700-707.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Eapen  ZJ, Fonarow  GC, Dai  D,  et al; Get With the Guidelines Steering Committee and Hospitals.  Comparison of composite measure methodologies for rewarding quality of care: an analysis from the American Heart Association’s Get With the Guidelines program. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2011;4(6):610-618.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
Ambardekar  AV, Fonarow  GC, Dai  D,  et al; Get With The Guidelines Steering Committee and Hospitals.  Quality of care and in-hospital outcomes in patients with coronary heart disease in rural and urban hospitals (from Get With the Guidelines-Coronary Artery Disease program). Am J Cardiol. 2010;105(2):139-143.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Supplement.

eAppendix. American Heart Association Get With the Guidelines–Resuscitation Investigators

eFigure 1. Histogram of Missing CPC Scores in GWTG-R Hospital Cohort

eFigure 2. Hospital Process Composite Performance Scores

eTable 1. GWTG-R IHCA Patient and Hospital Population

eTable 2. Eligibility for Process Measures in GWTG-R Population

eTable 3. Sensitivity Analysis: Risk Standardized Survival Rates and Adjusted Favorable Neurologic Status by Hospital Quartiles after Adding Race to the Model

eTable 4. Risk Standardized Survival Rates and Adjusted Favorable Neurologic Status by Hospital Quartiles

eTable 5. Other Characteristics of IHCA Patients by Hospital Adherence Quartiles in GWTG-R

eFigure 1. Histogram of Missing CPC Scores in GWTG-R Hospital Cohort

eFigure 2. Hospital Process Composite Performance Scores

Supplemental Content

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

4,348 Views
0 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs