CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 24Healthcare Quality and ManagementHealth Policy Implementation ScienceClinical practice guidelines implementation

Influencing care in acute myocardial infarction: a randomized trial comparing 2 types of intervention

Sauaia, Angela, Ralston, Debra, Schluter, W. William, Marciniak, Thomas A., Havranek, Edward P., Dunn, Thomas R.·2000·American Journal of Medical Quality
DOI 10.1177/106286060001500503
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate performance feedback delivered by on-site presentations compared to mailed feedback on improving acute myocardial infarction (AMI) care. We used a randomized trial including 18 hospitals nested within the Cooperative Cardiovascular Project. Patients comprised AMI Medicare patients admitted before (n = 929, 1994 and 1995) and after intervention (n = 438, 1996). Control hospitals received written feedback by mail. The experimental intervention group received a presentation led by a cardiologist and a quality improvement specialist. We assessed the proportion of patients receiving appropriate AMI care before and after the intervention. Both univariate and multivariate analyses demonstrated no effect of the intervention in increasing the proportion of patients who received reperfusion, aspirin, beta-blockers, or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors. On-site feedback presentations were not associated with a larger improvement in AMI care compared to the mailed feedback. Other interventions, such as opinion leaders and patient-directed interventions, may be necessary in order to improve the care of AMI patients.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/106286060001500503

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Sauaia 2000 found non-statistically significant differences between verbal feedback in a large group setting by an expert cardiologist and written feedback for improving eight quality of care outcomes related to acute management of myocardial infarction (median adjusted RD = 7%; P value for each outcome > 0.05).

    “Sauaia 2000 found differences that were not statistically significant between verbal feedback in a large group setting by an expert cardiologist and written feedback for improving eight quality of care outcomes related to acute management of myocardial infarction (median adjusted RD = 7%; P value for each outcome > 0.05).”

    From Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes (2012) · cites this paper as Sauaia 2000

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sauaia, A., Ralston, D., Schluter, W. W., Marciniak, T. A., Havranek, E. P., & Dunn, T. R.
Affiliations
  • Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, Aurora, Colo,
  • Colorado Foundation for Medical Care, Aurora, Colo
  • Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (US)
  • Denver Health Medical Center (US)
  • University of Colorado Anschutz (US)
Corresponding author
Sauaia, Angela
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Medical Quality
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2000-09
Volume
15
Issue
5
Pages
197-206
ISSN
  • 1062-8606 (ISSN-L)
  • 1555-824X
DOI
10.1177/106286060001500503
OpenAlex
W2032887385
Cited by
24
References
38
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • American Journal of Medical Quality (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Healthcare Quality and Management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
acute myocardial infarction, performance feedback, quality improvement, reperfusion therapy, aspirin, beta-blockers, ACE inhibitors, hospital quality of care, Medicare beneficiaries
MeSH terms
Aged, Analysis of Variance, Colorado, Education, Medical, Continuing, Feedback, Female, Medicare, Hospital Administrators, Humans, Male, Medical Staff, Hospital, Myocardial Infarction, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, United States, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S., Quality Indicators, Health Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review