4.5 Article

Quality of care for heart failure among disabled Medicaid recipients with and without severe mental illness

Journal

GENERAL HOSPITAL PSYCHIATRY
Volume 32, Issue 3, Pages 255-261

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2010.02.002

Keywords

Mental disorders; Heart failure; Quality of healthcare; Outcome assessment

Categories

Funding

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [5T32HL007024]
  2. National Institute of Mental Health [R01-MH074070]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To examine the association between severe mental illness (SMI) and quality of care in heart failure. Methods: We conducted a cohort study between 2001 and 2004 of disabled Maryland Medicaid participants with heart failure. Quality measures and clinical outcomes were compared for individuals with and without SMI. Results: Of 1801 individuals identified with heart failure, 341 had comorbid SMI. SMI was not associated with differences in quality measures, including left ventricular assessment [adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.99; 95% CI 0.91-1.07], utilization of angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (aRR 1.04; 95% CI 0.92-1.17), or beta-blocker use (aRR 1.13; 95% CI 0.99-1.29). During the study period, 52.2% of individuals in the cohort filled a prescription for an ACE inhibitor or ARB and 45.5% filled a beta-blocker prescription. Individuals with and without SMI had similar rates of clinical outcomes, including hospitalizations, readmissions, and mortality. Both medication interventions were associated with improved mortality. Conclusions: In this sample of disabled Medicaid recipients with heart failure, persons with SMI received similar quality of care as those without SMI. Both groups had low rates of beneficial medical treatments. Quality improvement programs should consider how best to target these vulnerable populations. (C) 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available