Quality Measures in Stroke

Despite the use of antiplatelet agents, usually aspirin, in patients who have had an ischemic stroke, there is still a substantial rate of recurrence. Therefore, we investigated whether warfarin, which is effective and superior to aspirin in the prevention of cardiogenic embolism, would also prove superior in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke in patients with a prior noncardioembolic ischemic stroke. In a multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared the effect of warfarin (at a dose adjusted to produce an international normalized ratio of 1.4 to 2.8) and that of aspirin (325 mg per day) on the combined primary end point of recurrent ischemic stroke or death from any cause within two years. The two randomized study groups were similar with respect to base-line risk factors. In the intention-to-treat analysis, no significant differences were found between the treatment groups in any of the outcomes measured. The primary end point of death or recurrent ischemic stroke was reached by 196 of 1103 patients assigned to warfarin (17.8 percent) and 176 of 1103 assigned to aspirin (16.0 percent; P=0.25; hazard ratio comparing warfarin with aspirin, 1.13; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.38). The rates of major hemorrhage were low (2.22 per 100 patient-years in the warfarin group and 1.49 per 100 patient-years in the aspirin group). Also, there were no significant treatment-related differences in the frequency of or time to the primary end point or major hemorrhage according to the cause of the initial stroke (1237 patients had had previous small-vessel or lacunar infarcts, 576 had had cryptogenic infarcts, and 259 had had infarcts designated as due to severe stenosis or occlusion of a large artery). Over two years, we found no difference between aspirin and warfarin in the prevention of recurrent ischemic stroke or death or in the rate of major hemorrhage. Consequently, we regard both warfarin and aspirin as reasonable therapeutic alternatives.

Stroke results in substantial death and disability. To address this burden, Get With The Guideline (GWTG)-Stroke was developed to facilitate the measurement, tracking, and improvement in quality of care and outcomes for acute stroke and transient ischemic attack (TIA) patients in the United States. We analyzed the characteristics, performance measures, and in-hospital outcomes in the first 1 000 000 acute ischemic stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, subarachnoid hemorrhage, and TIA admissions from 1392 hospitals that participated in the GWTG-Stroke Program 2003 to 2009. Patients were 53.5% women, 73.3% white, and with mean age of 70.1+/-14.9 years. There were 601 599 (60.2%) ischemic strokes, 108 671 (10.9%) intracerebral hemorrhages, 34 945 (3.5%) subarachnoid hemorrhages, 26 977 (2.7%) strokes not classified, and 227 788 (22.8%) TIAs. Performance measures showed small to moderate differences by cerebrovascular event type. In-hospital mortality rate was highest among intracerebral hemorrhage (25.0%) and subarachnoid hemorrhage (20.4%), and intermediate in ischemic stroke (5.5%) patients and lowest among TIA patients (0.3%). Significant improvements over time from 2003 to 2009 in quality of care were observed: all-or-none measure, 44.0% versus 84.3% (+40.3%, P<0.0001). After adjustment for patient and hospital variables, the cumulative adjusted odds ratio for the all-or-none measure over the 6 years was 9.4 (95% confidence interval, 8.3 to 10.6, P<0.0001). Temporal improvements in length of stay and risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality rate (for ischemic stroke and TIA) were also observed. With more than 1 million patients enrolled, GWTG-Stroke represents an integrated stroke and TIA registry that supports national surveillance, innovative research, and sustained quality improvement efforts facilitating evidence-based stroke/TIA care.

Health care report cards publicly report information about physician, hospital, and health plan quality in an attempt to improve that quality. Reporting quality information publicly is presumed to motivate quality improvement through 2 main mechanisms. First, public quality information allows patients, referring physicians, and health care purchasers to preferentially select high-quality physicians. Second, public report cards may motivate physicians to compete on quality and, by providing feedback and by identifying areas for quality improvement initiatives, help physicians to do so. Despite these plausible mechanisms of quality improvement, the value of publicly reporting quality information is largely undemonstrated and public reporting may have unintended and negative consequences on health care. These unintended consequences include causing physicians to avoid sick patients in an attempt to improve their quality ranking, encouraging physicians to achieve "target rates" for health care interventions even when it may be inappropriate among some patients, and discounting patient preferences and clinical judgment. Public reporting of quality information promotes a spirit of openness that may be valuable for enhancing trust of the health professions, but its ability to improve health remains undemonstrated, and public reporting may inadvertently reduce, rather than improve, quality. Given these limitations, it may be necessary to reassess the role of public quality reporting in quality improvement.