Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
Babu Kunadian, research fellow, Joel Dunning, specialist registrar in cardiothoracic surgery, Anthony P Roberts, clinical effectiveness specialist adviser, Robert Morley, clinical audit lead, Darragh Twomey, clinical teaching fellow, James A Hall, consultant cardiologist, Andrew G C Sutton, consultant cardiologist, Robert A Wright, consultant cardiologist, Douglas F Muir, consultant cardiologist, Mark A de Belder, consultant cardiologist
1 Department of Cardiology, James Cook University Hospital, Middlesbrough TS4 3BW
Correspondence to: M A de Belder mark.debelder{at}stees.nhs.uk
Design Analysis of prospectively collected data.
Setting Tertiary centre NHS hospital in the north east of England.
Participants Five cardiologists carrying out percutaneous coronary interventions between January 2003 and December 2006.
Main outcome measures In-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (in-hospital death, Q wave myocardial infarction, emergency coronary artery bypass graft surgery, and cerebrovascular accident) analysed against the logistic north west quality improvement programme predicted risk, for each operator. Results are displayed as funnel plots summarising overall performance for each operator and cumulative funnel plots for an individual operators performance on a case series basis.
Results The funnel plots for 5198 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions showed an average observed rate for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events of 1.96% overall. This was below the predicted risk of 2.06% by the logistic north west quality improvement programme risk score. Rates of in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events for all operators were within the 3
upper control limit of 2.75% and 2
upper warning limit of 2.49%.
Conclusion The overall in-hospital major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events rates were under the predicted event rate. In-hospital rates after percutaneous coronary intervention procedure can be monitored successfully using funnel and cumulative funnel plots with 3
control limits to display and publish each operators outcomes. The upper warning limit (2
control limit) could be used for internal monitoring. The main advantage of these charts is their transparency, as they show observed and predicted events separately. By this approach individual operators can monitor their own performance, using the predicted risk for their patients but in a way that is compatible with benchmarking to colleagues, encapsulated by the funnel plot. This methodology is applicable regardless of variations in individual operator case volume and case mix.
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?