EASY-NET program: methods and preliminary results of an audit and feedback intervention in the emergency care for Acute Myocardial Infarction in the Lazio region, Italy
More details
Hide details
1
Department of Epidemiology, Regional Health Service of the Lazio Region, Rome, Italy
2
Department of Epidemiology, Regional Health Service, Rome, Italy
3
2UOC Percorsi e Valutazione Outcome Clinici - Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome, Italy
4
UOC Percorsi e Valutazione Outcome Clinici, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli-IRCCS, Rome, Italy
5
Department of Epidemiology, Regional Health Service - Lazio, Rome, Italy
Publication date: 2023-04-27
Popul. Med. 2023;5(Supplement):A1927
ABSTRACT
Background and Objective: Within the EASY-NET Network Programme (NET-2016-02364191) Effectiveness of Audit and Feedback strategies to improve healthcare practice and equity in various clinical and organisational settings, Work Package 1 (WP1-Lazio) compares the effectiveness between a more intensive A&F strategy and the periodic publication of indicators alone in improving the appropriateness and timeliness of emergency health interventions for acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This work describes the new A&F Methodology and presents the Results of the first feedback delivered. Methods: The intervention involves sending periodic reports via e-mail to participating hospitals. The feedback includes a set of volume, process and outcome indicators calculated through the Health Information System of the Lazio Region. Indicators are calculated by facility and compared with regional mean, standard values and values calculated for hospitals with similar volumes of activity. Feedback recipients are invited to organize clinical and organizational audit meetings aimed to identify possible critical indicators and define, where necessary, improvement actions. Results: The results presented are included in the first report (2021) delivered in September 2022. A total of 16 facilities of the Lazio region participate to the project for the AMI pathway evaluation. Twelve facilities present high volumes in all volume indicators, while 3 facilities present low volumes for each indicator presented. Concerning the quality indicators, 4 facilities do not present critical indicators or average Results, 3 facilities do not present critical indicators but average Results in at least one of the indicators, 6 facilities present for at least one of the indicators a critical value. Conclusions: The first report highlighted some critical issues in some facilities on several indicators. During the clinical-organizational audit meetings, each facility will analyse these issues defining appropriate improvement actions. The outcome of these actions will be monitored through subsequent reporting to support the continuous care quality improvement process.