Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project - University College ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Part 5: Conclusions/Recommendations1. Importance of nSTEMI data collectionSome years ago the Myocardial Infarction National AuditProject became the Myocardial Ischaemia NationalAudit Project. This subtle change of title was intendedto emphasise that participation in MINAP provided anopportunity to analyse the care of all patients admitted tohospital with ACS, and not just those with ST-elevation.Patients presenting with, rather than without, STelevationare more easy to identify and their immediatemanagement lends itself to audit – through reportingreperfusion rates and delays to reperfusion (e.g. Door-toballoon).However most patients with ACS have nSTEMI.Compared with STEMI, patients with nSTEMI tend to be olderand have more associated medical (and presumably social)problems. While most patients with STEMI are taken directlyto Heart Attack Centres for primary PCI, those with nSTEMI –who do not require immediate PCI – tend to be taken directlyto the nearest non-interventional hospital, and in some caseslater transferred to Heart Attack Centres. Their length of stayin hospital is longer and their risk of dying is greater – albeitthose at greatest risk can be identified using validated riskscoring systems.The identification of nSTEMI (and therefore the collectionof data about these patients) is not always easy – see thecase study by Fiona Robinson to understand the amount ofeffort and time that may need to be invested. Nevertheless,as that case study shows, it is not an impossible task, andshould, we believe, be the aspiration of all admitting hospitalsthat are interested in assuring and improving the quality ofcare provided to this group. Although there has been animprovement in nSTEMI data collection, there are still anumber of hospitals that are submitting limited, and in somecases no, data.MINAP is committed to provide its participating hospitals allpossible support, in term of understanding the database, thedataset and its definitions and the available analyses that willinform the hospital about their performance. We will facilitatepeer support, where possible, and networking to foster thesharing of good practice for hospitals to learn from eachother’s successes.2. Rapidity of transfer for angiography followingnSTEMIThe need for comparative audit is particularly pressing forpatients with nSTEMI given the significant variation in theinterval from admission to performance of coronary angiographypresented in this report. The optimum timing of angiography(and subsequent revascualrisation) remains unclear. Groupsdeveloping guidelines have interpreted differently the resultsof trials comparing medical treatment (drugs) and PCI withmedical treatment alone, suggesting maximum acceptabledelays of anything from 24 to 96 hours. Large numbers ofpatients are not yet receiving this standard of care. Even ifthere is no direct relationship between earlier angiographyand outcome (judged by mortality and further heart attack),those who do receive earlier angiography are more likely to bedischarged home and avoid prolonged hospitalisation.3. Continued investment in time, personnel andmoney in participation in national clinical auditSome perceive national clinical audit as a burden upon alreadybusy NHS staff, the collection and submission of data beingdivorced from caring for patients. During times of financialconstraint there is a temptation to reduce investment insuch exercises, even though participation in clinical auditis mandated by the Department of Health. Conversely, wewould argue that such conditions – a working environmentcharacterised by cost containment and efficiency – increase,rather than decrease the need for reliable contemporaryknowledge of hospital performance. As demonstrated in thecase studies, such information, when used wisely, can beused to inform local improvements. Further, it can be used toreassure users, providers and commissioners that the qualityof care provided to individual patients is not being sacrificed asservices are reconfigured.The quality of contemporary data is extremely important ifa true picture is to emerge. MINAP data are quite complexand its collection, often needing extraction from medicalnotes, requires experience – it becomes more manageableover time. We strongly recommend that each hospital/Trusthas a designated individual responsible for clinical auditdata and that they are supported by a local cardiologist asclinical input has shown to result in higher quality data. Highturnover and reduction in the number of staff in clinical auditdepartments is in no one’s interest.100 MINAP How the NHS cares for patients with heart attack
Part 6: AppendicesAppendix 1: MINAP Steering GroupAppendix 2: MAG membershipDr Clive WestonDr Mark de BelderProf Sir Roger Boyle CBEChairmanClinical Director MINAPInterventional Cardiologist,James Cook University HospitalCo-director of NICORProf Adam TimmisDr Mark de BelderChair, Professor of ClinicalCardiology, Barts and theLondon School of Medicine andDentistryInterventional Cardiologist,James Cook University HospitalDr David CunninghamDr Kevin StewartSenior Strategist for NationalCardiac Audits, NICORClinical Director, ClinicalEffectiveness & Evaluation Unit,Royal College of PhysiciansDr Clive WestonProf Sir Roger Boyle CBEDr David CunninghamClinical Director, MINAPCo-director of NICORSenior Strategist for NationalCardiac Audits, NICORProf Peter WeissbergMedical Director, British HeartFoundationProf Keith FoxProfessor of Cardiology,University of EdinburghProf Tom QuinnMs Fiona DudleyProf Adam TimmisDr Mark DancySue ManuelAssociate Dean for Health &Medical Strategy, University ofSurreyLead Nurse for Cardiology:Mid Yorkshire HospitalsNHS TrustChairman of MINAP AcademicGroupNational Clinical Chair forNHS ImprovementMINAP Senior Developer, NICORDr Chris GaleProf Harry HemingwayDr Owen NicholasNIHR Clinician Scientist AwardSenior Lecturer in CardiovascularHealth Research and HonoraryConsultant CardiologistProfessor of ClinicalEpidemiology, Department ofEpidemiology and Public Health,University College of LondonSenior Research Associate,Department of Epidemiology andPublic Health, University CollegeLondonMrs Lynne WalkerMr Alan KeysNICOR Programme ManagerMINAP Patient/Carer GroupRepresentativeProf Iain SquireProfessor of CardiovascularMedicine, Department ofCardiovascular Science,University of LeicesterMr Iain ThomasMINAP Patient/Carer GroupRepresentativeProf Paul WilkinsonProfessor of EnvironmentalEpidemiology, London School ofHygiene & Tropical MedicineDr Iain SimpsonMs Lucia GavalovaPresident, BritishCardiovascular SocietyMINAP Project ManagerDr Spiros DenaxasCALIBER Data Manager,Department of Epidemiology andPublic Health, University CollegeLondonMr Ronald van LeevenMINAP Project Co-ordinatorLynne WalkerNICOR Programme ManagerMs Lucia GavalovaMINAP Project ManagerDr Emmanuel LazaridisSenior Information Analyst,NICORMINAP Eleventh Public Report 2012 101
Page 1 and 2:
Myocardial IschaemiaNational Audit
Page 3 and 4:
Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit
Page 5 and 6:
ForewordThe annual MINAP Report, no
Page 7 and 8:
Patients who received thrombolytic
Page 9 and 10:
considering such factors as the age
Page 11 and 12:
egarding previous medical history.
Page 13 and 14:
3. Improving quality,improving outc
Page 15 and 16:
is an acute heart failure syndrome
Page 17 and 18:
Alan KeysMINAP Steering Group patie
Page 19 and 20:
Figure 7. Patients admitted with a
Page 21 and 22:
Figure 11. Percentage of patients w
Page 23 and 24:
transfers require a significant amo
Page 25 and 26:
Table 8 shows the performance of th
Page 27 and 28:
This year we report on the interval
Page 29 and 30:
Conquest Hospital, St Leonards onSe
Page 31 and 32:
Royal Derby Hospital, Derby 62 89%
Page 33 and 34:
“During times of financial constr
Page 35 and 36:
Broomfield Hospital, Chelmsford 0 0
Page 37 and 38:
Leighton Hospital, Crewe 43 86% 49
Page 39 and 40:
Royal Preston Hospital, Preston 48
Page 41 and 42:
Wycombe Hospital, High Wycombe 11 1
Page 43 and 44:
“I know that MINAP data has been
Page 45 and 46:
Cheltenham General Hospital, Chelte
Page 47 and 48:
Manchester Royal Infirmary, Manches
Page 49 and 50: Salford Royal Hospital, Manchester
Page 51 and 52: “MINAP, and its long history, is
Page 53 and 54: Table 6: Ambulance Services in Engl
Page 55 and 56: Bradford Royal Infirmary, Bradford
Page 57 and 58: Hexham General Hospital, Hexham 17
Page 59 and 60: Papworth Hospital, Cambridge 560 99
Page 61 and 62: Salisbury District Hospital, Salisb
Page 63 and 64: West Middlesex University Hospital,
Page 65 and 66: “We have participated in MINAP fr
Page 67 and 68: Dorset Cardiac and Stroke Network 7
Page 69 and 70: “Participation in MINAP has helpe
Page 71 and 72: Blackpool Victoria Hospital, Blackp
Page 73 and 74: Harefield Hospital 139 84% 156 94%
Page 75 and 76: Northern General Hospital, Sheffiel
Page 77 and 78: Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle
Page 79 and 80: Warrington Hospital, Warrington 435
Page 81 and 82: Withybush General Hospital, Haverfo
Page 83 and 84: Part Three: Case Studies1. Call act
Page 85 and 86: 3. Implementing a high-risk nSTEACS
Page 87 and 88: The British Heart Foundation is a r
Page 89 and 90: of six individual criteria - all in
Page 91 and 92: 9. Use of MINAP data to develop and
Page 93 and 94: Figure 26. Part 2 collected by Card
Page 95 and 96: 12. Shifting the FocusNicola Mannin
Page 97 and 98: Figure 29. Funnel plot of hospital
Page 99: Figure 30. Estimated excess risk of
Page 103 and 104: Coronary thrombosisThe formation of
Page 105 and 106: Birkhead J, Walker L. MINAP, a proj
Page 107: Heart attacks recorded in MINAP in
show all

Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project - University College ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?