Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Measuring heart failure quality: does perfection matter?
  1. Adam D DeVore1,2,
  2. Adrian F Hernandez1,2
  1. 1Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  2. 2Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA
  1. Correspondence to Dr Adam D DeVore, Duke Clinical Research Institute, PO Box 17969, Durham, NC 27715, USA; adam.devore{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

In most countries, the prevalence of heart failure is rising and is associated with staggering healthcare costs with many of these costs related to hospital care.1 Each year, more than 1 million patients are hospitalised with heart failure in both Europe and the USA.2 ,3 Because of marked variations in practice and outcomes, heart failure is often targeted for hospital quality improvement efforts. Most quality improvement programmes or national policies focus on improving processes of care as a means to improve quality. These programmes’ attention towards process measures are designed to accelerate the implementation of best strategies of care or evidence-based therapeutics systematically to reduce variations in practice and ideally improve outcomes. Despite the logical relationship of some process measures to outcomes, whether such links exist is often unclear. That is, would ‘perfect’ care as measured by processes of care yield ‘perfect’ outcomes?

In their Heart publication, Bottle et al4 describe the association between six National Heart Failure Audit process of care measures and outcomes for patients hospitalised with heart failure in England from 2009 to 2012. The investigators found broad use of appropriate medical therapy …

View Full Text


  • Twitter Follow Adam D. DeVore at @_adevore

  • Contributors I reviewed the article being published and wrote the first draft of the editorial. AFH assisted with the editorial drafting and the critical revision of the editorial.

  • Competing interests ADD reports receiving research funding from Amgen, the American Heart Association, Maquet, Novartis, and Thoratec and serving as a consultant for Maquet. AFH reported receiving honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Janssen, Merck and Novartis, and research support from the American Heart Association, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, and the National Heart and Lung Blood Institute.

  • Provenance and peer review Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles