Document Type


Publication Date


Publication Title

Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes




Background: Team communication about hospital quality efforts in acute myocardial infarction and heart failure (AMI-HF) may affect compliance with hospital transitional care metrics.

Methods: At 2 years, hospitals (n=35) participating in the Patient Navigator Program completed surveys on 5 types of communication (sharing meeting minutes, regular team meetings or conference calls with team leaders, a shared checklist, and electronic medical record (EMR)-directed communication) supporting program implementation. Results were assessed for association with 3 outcomes (30-day unadjusted AMI-HF readmission and in-hospital risk adjusted AMI death) and 14 processes: left ventricular systolic dysfunction evaluation, prescription of renin-angiotensin system and beta-blocker medications; identifying HF cases pre-discharge; medication reconciliation documentation on admission, discharge and both times [AMI-HF); planned follow-up in 7 days [HF]; documentation of self-care education and when to call healthcare providers [AMI-HF] and documentation of medication instructions, timing, and changes [AMI-HF]). In STEMI and NSTEMI, performance composites, overall defect free care and referral to cardiac rehabilitation were assessed. Univariate analyses were completed.

Results: There were no differences in process or outcome metrics for sharing meeting minutes, regular team meetings or conference calls with leaders or using a shared checklist. EMR-directed communication was associated with a greater likelihood of discharge medication reconciliation (100% vs 68.4%, p=.027) and prescribed medication documentation, 100% vs 66.7%, p=.024). Sites that used 2-5 vs 0-1 communication types were more likely to identify patients with HF pre-discharge (100% vs 60%, p=.018), perform discharge medication reconciliation (100% vs 66.7%, p=.021), complete education documentation (93.3% vs 58.8%, p=.041) and medication instruction documentation (100% vs 64.7%, p=.019); but they were less likely to improve STEMI performance composite scores (37.5% vs 76.5%, p=.036).

Conclusion: Team communication via EMR and using 2+ communication methods promoted some process metric improvements. Some communication methods may have had low use and process and outcome metrics that were unchanged may have been underpowered to detect differences.

Clinical Institute

Cardiovascular (Heart)


Center for Cardiovascular Analytics, Research + Data Science (CARDS)



Included in

Cardiology Commons