A detailed analysis of patients included in the Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI) for myocardial infarction (MI)—all is not what it seems?. Issue 2 (9th June 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Sharma, Vinoda; Chowdhary, Saqib; Abdul, Fairoz; Džavík, Vladimír; Varma, Chetan
• Is Part Of: BMJ open quality. Volume 9:Issue 2(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-06-09
• Subjects: quality measurement -- mortality (standardized mortality ratios) -- coronary disease; Medical care -- Quality control -- Periodicals; 362.106805
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjoq-2019-000836
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2399-6641

Abstract

Abstract : Background: The Summary Hospital-level Mortality Indicator (SHMI) for Myocardial Infarction (MI) is the ratio of the observed to the expected number of deaths due to MI. We aimed to assess (1) the accuracy of MI as a diagnosis in the SHMI for MI and (2) the healthcare received by patients with type 1 MI included in the SHMI for MI. Methods: Retrospective review of patients included in SHMI for MI from April 2017 to March 2018. The diagnosis of MI was divided into type 1, type 2 and non-MI. For patients with type 1 MI who underwent intervention, we applied the prognostic Toronto Risk Score (TRS) and classified into group 0: score <13 (mortality risk 0%–4%, lowest risk), group 1: score 13–16 (mortality risk 6%–19.6%), group 2: score 17–19 (mortality risk 27.4%–47.6%) and group 3: score ≥20 (mortality risk 58%–92%). For patients with type 1 MI who underwent conservative management, we reviewed appropriateness of conservative management. Results: SHMI for MI was 96 (41/42.83) falling to 65.4 with the inclusion of only type 1 MI (28 patients, 28/42.83). About 41.5% (n=17) underwent intervention of whom three were in the lowest risk TRS (group 0) and all received appropriate healthcare. Conservative management was appropriate for the 26.8% (n=11) treated medically, the most common reason was severe cognitive dysfunction. Conclusions: We have demonstrated that SHMI for MI can be inaccurate due to the inclusion of type 2 MI or non-MI. Grouping patients into intervention versus conservative management helps in assessment of healthcare.