{"id":{"repo_id":"york","oai_identifier":"oai:yorkspace.library.yorku.ca:10315/30699"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/york/oai:yorkspace.library.yorku.ca:10315/30699","repository":{"repo_id":"york","name":"York University","base_url":"https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"The Quality and Variability of Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery","abstract":"Background: Cardiac care, including cardiac rehabilitation (CR), is most effective if it is high-quality. The aim of this study was to describe CR quality, using the recently-developed Canadian Cardiovascular Society CR quality indicators (QIs). As secondary and tertiary objectives, site differences in quality were measured, and the criterion validity of 4 of the QIs in comparison to self-report data were established. Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on an observational, prospective, multi-site CR program evaluation cohort. A convenience sample of patients from one of 3 CR programs was approached at their first CR visit, and consenting participants completed a survey. Clinical data were extracted from charts pre and post-program. Of the 30 CR QIs, 21 (70.0%) were assessable: 10 process, 9 outcome and 2 structure QIs. Results: Of 411 consenting patients, 209 (53.0%) completed CR. The greatest quality was observed for assessment of blood pressure (98.1%), communication with primary healthcare at CR discharge (94.2%), and patient enrollment (93.7%). The lowest quality was observed for wait time from hospital discharge (9.2%), assessments of blood glucose (42.1%), and lipid control (53.0%). Of the 7 QIs that had an established benchmark, quality for 2 (28.6%) was above the benchmark (particularly assessment of blood pressure). Significant site differences were observed in 11 (64.7%) QIs. The magnitude of quality differences between sites was largest for assessment of lipid control (72.6%), assessment of blood glucose control (69.0%), and wait time in median days from referral to enrollment (30.6 days). Validity was fair for QIs 2a and 3. None to slight validity was found for QI-17, and 18 respectively. Conclusion: There is wide variability in CR program quality, both overall and between CR sites. Quality improvement in particular aspects of CR care is required.","abstract_html":"Background: Cardiac care, including cardiac rehabilitation (CR), is most effective if it is high-quality. The aim of this study was to describe CR quality, using the recently-developed Canadian Cardiovascular Society CR quality indicators (QIs). As secondary and tertiary objectives, site differences in quality were measured, and the criterion validity of 4 of the QIs in comparison to self-report data were established. Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on an observational, prospective, multi-site CR program evaluation cohort. A convenience sample of patients from one of 3 CR programs was approached at their first CR visit, and consenting participants completed a survey. Clinical data were extracted from charts pre and post-program. Of the 30 CR QIs, 21 (70.0%) were assessable: 10 process, 9 outcome and 2 structure QIs. Results: Of 411 consenting patients, 209 (53.0%) completed CR. The greatest quality was observed for assessment of blood pressure (98.1%), communication with primary healthcare at CR discharge (94.2%), and patient enrollment (93.7%). The lowest quality was observed for wait time from hospital discharge (9.2%), assessments of blood glucose (42.1%), and lipid control (53.0%). Of the 7 QIs that had an established benchmark, quality for 2 (28.6%) was above the benchmark (particularly assessment of blood pressure). Significant site differences were observed in 11 (64.7%) QIs. The magnitude of quality differences between sites was largest for assessment of lipid control (72.6%), assessment of blood glucose control (69.0%), and wait time in median days from referral to enrollment (30.6 days). Validity was fair for QIs 2a and 3. None to slight validity was found for QI-17, and 18 respectively. Conclusion: There is wide variability in CR program quality, both overall and between CR sites. Quality improvement in particular aspects of CR care is required.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Somanader, Deborah Shiranthi"],"institution":null,"degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Grace, Sherry L."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-12-16","date_published":"2015-12-16","updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:33:58Z","subjects":["Health sciences"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Author owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests."],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/10315/30699","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Grace, Sherry L."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Somanader, Deborah Shiranthi"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2015-12-16T19:23:51Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2015-12-16T19:23:51Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2015-12-16"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Health sciences"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Author owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests."]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/10315/30699"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Background: Cardiac care, including cardiac rehabilitation (CR), is most effective if it is high-quality. The aim of this study was to describe CR quality, using the recently-developed Canadian Cardiovascular Society CR quality indicators (QIs). As secondary and tertiary objectives, site differences in quality were measured, and the criterion validity of 4 of the QIs in comparison to self-report data were established. Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on an observational, prospective, multi-site CR program evaluation cohort. A convenience sample of patients from one of 3 CR programs was approached at their first CR visit, and consenting participants completed a survey. Clinical data were extracted from charts pre and post-program. Of the 30 CR QIs, 21 (70.0%) were assessable: 10 process, 9 outcome and 2 structure QIs. Results: Of 411 consenting patients, 209 (53.0%) completed CR. The greatest quality was observed for assessment of blood pressure (98.1%), communication with primary healthcare at CR discharge (94.2%), and patient enrollment (93.7%). The lowest quality was observed for wait time from hospital discharge (9.2%), assessments of blood glucose (42.1%), and lipid control (53.0%). Of the 7 QIs that had an established benchmark, quality for 2 (28.6%) was above the benchmark (particularly assessment of blood pressure). Significant site differences were observed in 11 (64.7%) QIs. The magnitude of quality differences between sites was largest for assessment of lipid control (72.6%), assessment of blood glucose control (69.0%), and wait time in median days from referral to enrollment (30.6 days). Validity was fair for QIs 2a and 3. None to slight validity was found for QI-17, and 18 respectively. Conclusion: There is wide variability in CR program quality, both overall and between CR sites. Quality improvement in particular aspects of CR care is required."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Quality and Variability of Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Grace, Sherry L."],"dc:creator":["Somanader, Deborah Shiranthi"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2015-12-16T19:23:51Z"],"dc:date.available":["2015-12-16T19:23:51Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2015-12-16"],"dc:description.abstract":["Background: Cardiac care, including cardiac rehabilitation (CR), is most effective if it is high-quality. The aim of this study was to describe CR quality, using the recently-developed Canadian Cardiovascular Society CR quality indicators (QIs). As secondary and tertiary objectives, site differences in quality were measured, and the criterion validity of 4 of the QIs in comparison to self-report data were established. Methods: Secondary analysis was conducted on an observational, prospective, multi-site CR program evaluation cohort. A convenience sample of patients from one of 3 CR programs was approached at their first CR visit, and consenting participants completed a survey. Clinical data were extracted from charts pre and post-program. Of the 30 CR QIs, 21 (70.0%) were assessable: 10 process, 9 outcome and 2 structure QIs. Results: Of 411 consenting patients, 209 (53.0%) completed CR. The greatest quality was observed for assessment of blood pressure (98.1%), communication with primary healthcare at CR discharge (94.2%), and patient enrollment (93.7%). The lowest quality was observed for wait time from hospital discharge (9.2%), assessments of blood glucose (42.1%), and lipid control (53.0%). Of the 7 QIs that had an established benchmark, quality for 2 (28.6%) was above the benchmark (particularly assessment of blood pressure). Significant site differences were observed in 11 (64.7%) QIs. The magnitude of quality differences between sites was largest for assessment of lipid control (72.6%), assessment of blood glucose control (69.0%), and wait time in median days from referral to enrollment (30.6 days). Validity was fair for QIs 2a and 3. None to slight validity was found for QI-17, and 18 respectively. Conclusion: There is wide variability in CR program quality, both overall and between CR sites. Quality improvement in particular aspects of CR care is required."],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/10315/30699"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:rights":["Author owns copyright, except where explicitly noted. Please contact the author directly with licensing requests."],"dc:subject":["Health sciences"],"dc:title":["The Quality and Variability of Cardiac Rehabilitation Delivery"],"dc:type":["Electronic Thesis or Dissertation"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:33:58Z"}