Development of a percutaneous coronary intervention patient level composite measure for a clinical quality registry

© 2020 The Author(s). Background: Composite measures combine data to provide a comprehensive view of patient outcomes. Despite composite measures being a valuable tool to assess post-intervention outcomes, the patient perspective is often missing. The purpose of this study was to develop a compo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Ayton, D., Soh, S.E., Morello, R., Ahern, S., Earnest, A., Brennan, A., Lefkovits, J., Evans, S., Reid, Christopher, Ruseckaite, R., McNeil, J.
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2020
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11937/80060
Description
Summary:© 2020 The Author(s). Background: Composite measures combine data to provide a comprehensive view of patient outcomes. Despite composite measures being a valuable tool to assess post-intervention outcomes, the patient perspective is often missing. The purpose of this study was to develop a composite measure for an established cardiac outcome registry, by combining clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) developed specifically for this population (MC-PROM). Methods: Two studies were undertaken. Study 1: Patients who had undergone a PCI at one of the three participating registry hospital sites completed the 5-item MC-PROM. Clinical outcome data for the patients (e.g. death, myocardial infarction, repeat vascularisation, new bleeding event) were collected 30 days post-intervention as part of routine data collection for the cardiac registry. Exploratory factor analysis of clinical outcomes and MC-PROM data was conducted to determine the minimum number of constructs to be included in a composite measure. Study 2: Clinical experts participated in a Delphi technique, consisting of three rounds of online surveys, to determine the clinical outcomes to be included and the weighting of the clinical outcomes and MC-PROM score for the composite measure. Results: Study 1: Routine clinical outcomes and the MC-PROM data were collected from 266 patients 30 days post PCI. The MC-PROM score was not significantly correlated with any clinical outcomes. Study 2: There was a relatively consistent approach to the weighting of the clinical outcomes and MC-PROM items by the expert panel (n = 18) across the three surveys with the exception of the clinical outcome of 'deceased at 30 days'. The final composite measure included five clinical outcomes within 30 days weighted at 90% (new heart failure, new myocardial infarction, new stent thrombosis, major bleeding event, new stroke, unplanned cardiac rehospitalisation) and the MC-PROM score (comprising 10% of the total weighting). Conclusions: A single patient level composite score, which incorporates weighted clinical outcomes and a PROM was developed. This composite score provides a more comprehensive reported measure of individual patient wellbeing at 30 days post their PCI-procedure, and may assist clinicians to further assess and address patient level factors that potentially impact on clinical recovery.