demonstrated significant variations in practice 4 . At the sametime Government officials began to recognise the potentialgain to public health from the optimum management of heartattack. Setting, delivering and monitoring standards becamean imperative, resulting in much professional and publicengagement in describing both potential health outcomeindicators 5 and the standards of care expected by patientswith coronary disease, expressed within a <strong>National</strong> ServiceFramework (NSF) 6 . This mandated every acute hospital tomake available clinical audit data that was no more than 12months old and suggested that “where relevant” these shouldbe “derived from participation in national audits”.A <strong>Myocardial</strong> Infarction (later, ischaemia) <strong>National</strong> <strong>Audit</strong><strong>Project</strong> (MINAP) was established in 1999. It was founded onthe following propositions:The audit should be a complete record of care ratherthan a snapshot – all (rather than a sample of) patientsbeing included.The audit should be prospective – information beingcollected as soon after treatment as possible.Participating hospitals should agree both commondefinitions of clinically important variables and commonstandards of good quality care against which to audittheir practice.Standards of care should be chosen that have a provenlink to improved outcome – i.e. those aspects of care beingaudited, whilst capable of being expressed as measuresof process or performance, should link directly to betterpatient outcomes.The practices of individual hospitals should be aggregatedinto a national figure – a hospital could audit against agreedstandards and compare against the national aggregate.Sufficient data should be recorded to allow for casemixadjustment and other techniques for investigatingdifferences in outcomes between hospitals.The dataset should be revised periodically to account for theintroduction of newer treatments.4. Birkhead JS. Thrombolytic treatment for myocardial infarction: an examinationof practice in 39 United Kingdom hospitals. <strong>Myocardial</strong> Infarction <strong>Audit</strong> Group.Heart 1997;78:28-335. Birkhead J, Goldacre M, Mason A, et al. Health Outcome Indicators: <strong>Myocardial</strong>Infarction. Oxford, Centre for Health Outcomes Development, 1999.6.<strong>National</strong> Service Framework for Coronary Heart Disease. Modern standardsand service models. Accessed on 25 June 2011 at www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_4057526.pdf7. Birkhead JS. Responding to the requirements of the <strong>National</strong> ServiceFramework for coronary disease: a core data set for myocardial infarction. Heart2000;84:116-7.8. www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/transparency- overview9. Godlee F. Publish your team’s performance. BMJ 2012;344:e459010. www.data.gov.uk/dataset/myocardial-ischaemia-national-audit-projectThe audit should maintain its credibility and validity by beingguided and supported by relevant professional bodies andpatient groups and be managed by a small project team.A publicly accessible report should be published annually.The standards presented in the NSF became the standardsagainst which care was compared and a core dataset wasprepared for participating hospitals 7 . Data collection began inOctober 2000 and by mid-2002 all acute hospitals in Englandand Wales were participating in the audit.Latterly, the government has championed ‘Transparency andOpen Data’ 8 , wishing to promote ready access to health data,and the Editor of the British Medical Journal has challengedthe British Cardiovascular Society, and others, to show clinicalleadership in “pushing for public access to performance dataof individual clinical teams”, asking “What are you doing?” 9One answer is that for the past eleven years an annual MINAPreport, of the performance of clinical teams within hospitalsagainst nationally agreed standards, has been produced forthe benefit of clinicians, hospital managers, the ‘healthcarecommunity’ and, importantly, patients and the general public.MINAP is one of the first national audits to have data availableon the data.gov.uk website as part of the Transparency Agenda 10 .2.2 Organisation of MINAPMINAP is one of 6 national cardiac clinical audits thatare managed by the <strong>National</strong> Institute for CardiovascularOutcomes Research (NICOR), which is part of the Institute ofCardiovascular Science at <strong>University</strong> <strong>College</strong> London (UCL).NICOR was established in 2006 by Prof Sir Bruce Keoghand is co-chaired by Prof Sir Roger Boyle and Prof JohnDeanfield. Its purpose is to provide information on quality andoutcome of care provided to people with heart disease andto provide technical infrastructure, project management andstatistical support for the national cardiac audits. NICOR isa collaborative partnership between various cardiovascularprofessional societies, the Department of Health in Englandand the Welsh Government.MINAP is overseen by a Steering Group representing keystakeholders, including professional bodies, nationalgovernment and patient representatives – in collaborationwith the British Cardiovascular Society (Appendix 1). It iscommissioned by the Healthcare Quality ImprovementPartnership (HQIP) – the organisation that holdscommissioning and funding responsibility for MINAP and othernational clinical audits. An academic group, which reports tothe Steering Group, has been established to facilitate researchuse of the data, see Part 4.2.3 How the data are collectedThe current dataset v9.1 contains 124 fields and includes preandin-hospital treatment, patient demographics and information10 MINAP How the NHS cares for patients with heart attack
egarding previous medical history. The dataset is revised everytwo years to meet the requirements of users and to respond todevelopments in the management of ACS and is due for revisionin late 2012. The dataset is available on the MINAP web pages:http://www.ucl.ac.uk/nicor/audits/minap/dataset.Data are collected by nurses and clinical audit staff andentered in a dedicated data application (either on-line or webbased). Alternatively hospital personnel may collect datausing commercial software. The project uses a highly secureelectronic system of data entry, transmission and analysisdeveloped by the NICOR Technical Team. The audit has beenrunning continuously since 2000 and all hospitals in Englandand Wales that admit patients with ACS contribute data (exceptScarborough General Hospital and Kingston Hospital).Participating hospitals are requested to enter all patients withsuspected myocardial infarction. Approximately 91,000 recordsare uploaded annually and by August 2012 the databasecontained over 1 million records, making it the largestdatabase of its kind in the world.2.4 Security and patient confidentialityAll data uploaded by hospitals are encrypted on transmissionand stored encrypted on the NICOR servers. NICOR managesaccess control to the servers via user IDs and passwords. Allpatient identifiable data are pseudonymised by the NICORtechnical team before release to the project management teamvia a secure drop box on the NICOR server. Patient identifiabledata are only available for the purpose of record linkage. Dataheld within NICOR are managed within a secure environmentfor storage and processing provided by the UCL network andwithin the UCL information governance and security policy.NICOR is registered under the Data Protection Act. Additionally,NICOR - of which MINAP is part - has support under section251 of the <strong>National</strong> Health Service (NHS) Act 2006 (Ref: NIGB:ECC 1-06 (d)/2011).NICOR staff recognise that confidentiality is an obligation andregularly undergo information governance training to ensureunderstanding of the duty of confidentiality and how it relatesto patient data.2.5 Case ascertainmentIn practice MINAP records the great majority of patientshaving STEMI in England and Wales. However it is recognisedthat a small minority of hospitals do not enter all their nSTEMIpatients, mainly due to lack of resources, although in therecent year there has been an improvement in this area. Thetrue number of heart attacks is difficult to establish, as it isnot possible to compare MINAP data with Hospital EpisodeStatistics (HES), the only possible comparator, except inaggregate. Although HES reports approximately 105,000hospital admissions per year with myocardial infarction,it is not possible to separate this number into the clinicalcategories used within MINAP. MINAP records about 30,000STEMIs, but only about 50,000 nSTEMIs annually. Frominternal data we consider that approximately 80,000 nSTEMIsper year would be an appropriate number. However, withthe expanding analytical capacity within NICOR, there arenow plans to explore other ways of establishing the caseascertainment rate in MINAP and to provide a clearer pictureon the incidence of heart attacks in England and Wales.MINAP Eleventh Public Report 201211
- 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: considering such factors as the age
- 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 and 100:
Figure 30. Estimated excess risk of
- Page 101 and 102:
Part 6: AppendicesAppendix 1: MINAP
- 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