No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Implementation of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement CHD standard set in patients undergoing pulmonary valve replacement
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2024
Abstract
Background:
Despite the burden of CHD, a high cost and utilization condition, an implementation of long-term outcome measures is lacking. The objective of this study is to pilot the implementation of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement CHD standard set in patients undergoing pulmonary valve replacement, a procedure performed in mostly well patients with diverse CHD.
Methods:
Patients ≥ 8 years old undergoing catheterization-based pulmonary valve replacement were approached via various approaches for patient-reported outcomes, with a follow-up assessment at 3 months post-procedure. Implementation strategy analysis was performed via a hybrid type 2 design.
Results:
Of the 74 patients undergoing pulmonary valve replacement, 32 completed initial patient-reported outcomes with variable response rates by strategy (email and in-person explanation 100%, email only 54%, and email followed by text/call 64%). Ages ranged 8–67 years (mean 30). Pre-procedurally, 34% had symptomatic arrhythmias, which improved post-procedure. For those in school, 43% missed ≥ 6 days per year, and over half had work absenteeism. Financial concerns were reported in 34%. Patients reported high satisfaction with life (50% [n = 16]) and health-related quality of life (90% [n = 26]). Depression symptoms were reported in 84% (n = 27) and anxiety in 62.5% (n = 18), with tendency towards improvement post-procedurally.
Conclusion:
Pilot implementation of the International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement CHD standard set in pulmonary valve replacement patients reveals a significant burden of disease not previously reported. Barriers to the implementation include a sustainable, automated system for patient-reported outcome collection and infrastructure to assess in real time. This provides an example of implementing cardiac outcomes set in clinical practice.
- Type
- Original Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Burstein, DS, Shamszad, P, Dai, D, et al. Significant mortality, morbidity and resource utilization associated with advanced heart failure in congenital heart disease in children and young adults. Am Heart J 2019; 209: 9–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Edelson, JB, Rossano, JW, Griffis, H, et al. Emergency department visits by children with congenital heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72: 1817–1825.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Islam, S, Kaul, P, Tran, DT, Mackie, AS. Health care resource utilization among children with congenital heart disease: a population-based study. Can J Cardiol 2018; 34: 1289–1297.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tuomela, KE, Gordon, JB, Cassidy, LD, Johaningsmeir, S, Ghanayem, NS. Resource utilization associated with extracardiac co-morbid conditions following congenital heart surgery in infancy. Pediatr Cardiol 2017; 38: 1065–1070.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collaborators of the Global, Regional, and National Burden of Congenital Heart Disease, 1990–2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. Lancet Child Adolesc Health, Cambridge, MA, 2020.Google Scholar
Oster, ME, Lee, KA, Honein, MA, Riehle-Colarusso, T, Shin, M, Correa, A. Temporal trends in survival among infants with critical congenital heart defects. Pediatrics 2013; 131: e1502–e1508.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raissadati, A, Nieminen, H, Haukka, J, Sairanen, H, Jokinen, E. Late causes of death after pediatric cardiac surgery: a 60-year population-based study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 487–498.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moons, P, Bovijn, L, Budts, W, Belmans, A, Gewillig, M. Temporal trends in survival to adulthood among patients born with congenital heart disease from 1970 to 1992 in Belgium. Circulation 2010; 122: 2264–2272.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mandalenakis, Z, Rosengren, A, Skoglund, K, Lappas, G, Eriksson, P, Dellborg, M. Survivorship in children and young adults with congenital heart disease in Sweden. JAMA Intern Med 2017; 177: 224–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laussen, PC. Sharing and learning through the pediatric cardiac critical care consortium: moving toward precision care. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2021; 161: 2195–2199. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.05.092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gaies, M, Cooper, DS, Tabbutt, S, et al. Collaborative quality improvement in the cardiac intensive care unit: development of the paediatric cardiac critical care consortium (PC4). Cardiol Young 2015; 25: 951–957. DOI: 10.1017/S1047951114001450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wernovsky, G, Licht, DJ. Neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease-what can we impact? Pediatr Crit Care Med 2016; 17: S232–S242. DOI: 10.1097/PCC.0000000000000800.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marino, BS, Lipkin, PH, Newburger, JW, et al. American heart association congenital heart defects committee, council on cardiovascular disease in the young, council on cardiovascular nursing, and stroke council. neurodevelopmental outcomes in children with congenital heart disease: evaluation and management: a scientific statement from the American heart association. Circulation 2012; 126: 1143–1172. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0b013e318265ee8a.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The International Consortium of Health Outcomes Measurement. Boston, MA, 2023. ichom.org
Google Scholar
Hummel, K, Whittaker, S, Sillett, N, et al. Development of an international standard set of clinical and patient-reported outcomes for children and adults with congenital heart disease: a report from the international consortium for health outcomes measurement congenital heart disease working group. Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes 2021; 7: 354–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benning, L, Das-Gupta, Z, Sousa Fialho, L, Wissig, S, Tapela, N, Gaunt, S. Balancing adaptability and standardisation: insights from 27 routinely implemented ICHOM standard sets. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22: 1424. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08694-9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Porter, ME, Lee, TH. Integrated practice units: a playbook for health care leaders. NEJM Catalyst 2021; 2–9.Google Scholar
Levy, DJ, Pretorius, DH, Rothman, A, et al. Improved prenatal detection of congenital heart disease in an integrated health care system. Pediatr Cardiol 2013; 34: 670–679.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, KJ, Botto, LD, Correa, A, et al. Public health approach to improve outcomes for congenital heart disease across the life span. J Am Heart Assoc 2019; 8: e009450.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chowdhury, D, Johnson, JN, Baker-Smith, CM, et al. Health care policy and congenital heart disease: 2020 focus on Our 2030 Future. J Am Heart Assoc 2021; 10: e020605. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.120.020605.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, PA, Taylor, R, Thielke, R, Payne, J, Gonzalez, N, Conde, JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)–a metadata- driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42: 377–381.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Curran, GM, Bauer, M, Mittman, B, Pyne, JM, Stetler, C. Effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs: combining elements of clinical effectiveness and implementation research to enhance public health impact. Med Care 2012; 50: 217–212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Landes, SJ, McBain, SA, Curran, GM. An introduction to effectiveness-implementation hybrid designs. Psychiatry Res 2019; 280: 112513. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2019.112513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reiner, B, Oberhoffer, R, Ewert, P, et al. Quality of life in young people with congenital heart disease is better than expected. Arch Dis Child 2019; 104: 124–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonzalez, VJ, Kimbro, RT, Cutitta, KE, et al. Mental health disorders in children with congenital heart disease. Pediatrics 2021; 147: e20201693. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2020-1693.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Queirós, L, Redondo, P, França, M, et al. Implementing ICHOM standard set for cataract surgery at IPO-Porto (Portugal): clinical outcomes, quality of life and costs. BMC Ophthalmol 2021; 21: 119. DOI: 10.1186/s12886-021-01887-6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evans, SM, Millar, JL, Moore, CM, et al. Cohort profile: the trueNTH global registry - an international registry to monitor and improve localised prostate cancer health outcomes. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e017006. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017006.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guo, Y, Kopec, JA, Cibere, J, Li, LC, Goldsmith, CH. Population survey features and response rates: a randomized experiment. Am J Public Health 2016; 106: 1422–1426. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2016.303198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, J, Stanley, B, King, C, Fischer, C. Intervention research with persons at high risk for suicidality: safety and ethical considerations. J Clin Psychiat 2001; 25: 17–26.Google Scholar
Fawole, O, Dy, S, Wilson, R, et al. A systematic review of communication quality improvement interventions for patients with advanced and serious illness. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28: 570–577.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
National Institute of Mental Health, National Institute of Health. Conducting Research with Participants at Elevated Risk for Suicide: Considerations for Researchers. National Institute of Health, 2023. https://www.nimh.nih.gov/funding/clinical-research/conducting-research-with-participants-at-elevated-risk-for-suicide-considerations-for-researchers
Google Scholar