Outcomes research examines the effects of healthcare interventions and policies on health outcomes for individual patients and populations in routine practice, as opposed to the idealized setting of clinical trials. A national survey from 1998 to 2000 that evaluated the extent to which patients received established processes of care for 30 medical conditions illustrated the importance of outcomes research.1 Among adults living in 12 metropolitan areas in the United States, only half of patients received proven elements of preventive care, treatments for acute illness, and chronic disease management for which they were eligible. For cardiovascular conditions, the use of proven therapies varied widely from 68% to 25% of patients who received recommended care for coronary artery disease and atrial fibrillation, respectively.1 Despite these gaps between ideal and actual care, patient outcomes have improved in many fields. For instance, the age-adjusted mortality from cardiovascular disease in the United States fell by >40% from 1980 to 2000 as a result of improvements in risk factor modification and uptake of evidence-based treatments for coronary artery disease, myocardial infarction, and heart failure.2,3 Nevertheless, many Americans do not receive the ideal recommended care (either at all or in a timely fashion), whereas others receive too much or the wrong care.4,5 In the field of cardiovascular diseases, substantial opportunities for improvement remain. Outcomes research has generated a foundation of knowledge about what constitutes ideal care and what gaps exist between ideal and actual care, but we have less understanding about how to deliver this ideal care to every patient every day. The potential for basic science breakthroughs to reach and improve the health of individual patients and populations may be substantially delayed or may not be realized if science is not efficiently translated to action. Moreover, in many cases, increased delivery of …