Dataset Information

Comprehensive Outpatient Management of Low-Risk Pulmonary Embolism: Can Primary Care Do This? A Narrative Review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The evidence for outpatient management of hemodynamically stable, low-risk patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) is mounting. Guidance in identifying patients who are eligible for outpatient (ambulatory) care is available in the literature and society guidelines. Less is known about who can identify patients eligible for outpatient management and in what clinical practice settings.

Objective

To answer the question, "Can primary care do this?" (provide comprehensive outpatient management of low-risk PE).

Methods

We undertook a narrative review of the literature on the outpatient management of acute PE focusing on site of care. We searched the English-language literature in PubMed and Embase from January 1, 1950, through July 15, 2019.

Results

We identified 26 eligible studies. We found no studies that evaluated comprehensive PE management in a primary care clinic or general practice setting. In 19 studies, the site-of-care decision making occurred in the Emergency Department (or after a short period of supplemental observation) and in 7 studies the decision occurred in a specialty clinic. We discuss the components of care involved in the diagnosis, outpatient eligibility assessment, treatment, and follow-up of ambulatory patients with acute PE.

Discussion

We see no formal reason why a trained primary care physician could not provide comprehensive care for select patients with low-risk PE. Leading obstacles include lack of ready access to advanced pulmonary imaging and the time constraints of a busy outpatient clinic.

Conclusion

Until studies establish safe parameters of such a practice, the question "Can primary care do this?" must remain open.

SUBMITTER: Vinson DR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7089595 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe management and outcomes of patients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care have not been characterized.ObjectiveTo describe 30-day outcomes stratified by initial site-of-care decisions DESIGN: Multicenter retrospective cohort study PARTICIPANTS: Adults diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in primary care in a large, diverse community-based US health system (2013-2019) MAIN MEASURES: The primary outcome was a composite of 30-day serious adverse events (recurrent venous thromboembolism, major bleeding, and all-cause mortality). The secondary outcome was 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization, either initial or delayed.Key resultsAmong 652 patient encounters (from 646 patients), median age was 64 years; 51.5% were male and 70.7% identified as non-Hispanic white. Overall, 134 cases (20.6%) were sent home from primary care and 518 cases (79.4%) were initially referred to the emergency department (ED) or hospital. Among the referred, 196 (37.8%) were discharged home from the ED without events. Eight patients (1.2%; 95% CI 0.5-2.4%) experienced a 30-day serious adverse event: 4 venous thromboemboli (0.6%), 1 major bleed (0.2%), and 3 deaths (0.5%). Seven of these patients were initially hospitalized, and 1 had been sent home from primary care. All 3 deaths occurred in patients with known metastatic cancer initially referred to the ED, hospitalized, then enrolled in hospice following discharge. Overall, 328 patients (50.3%) were hospitalized within 7 days: 322 at the time of the index diagnosis and 6 following initial outpatient management (4 clinic-only and 2 clinic-plus-ED patients).ConclusionsPatients diagnosed with acute pulmonary embolism in this primary care setting uncommonly experienced 30-day adverse events, regardless of initial site-of-care decisions. Over 20% were managed comprehensively by primary care. Delayed 7-day pulmonary embolism-related hospitalization was rare among the 51% treated as outpatients. Primary care management of acute pulmonary embolism appears to be safe and could have implications for cost-effectiveness and patient care experience.

Project description:BackgroundMost patients with pulmonary embolism (PE) spend 5-7 days in hospital even though only 4.5% will develop serious complications during this time. In particular, the group of patients with incidentally diagnosed PE (i-PE) includes many patients with low risk features potentially ideal for outpatient management; however the evidence for their optimal management is lacking hence relative practices may vary considerably. We describe the development process, components, links and function of a nurse-led service for the management of patients with i-PE, developed in accordance to the UK Medical Research Council complex intervention guidance.MethodsPhase 0 (Theoretical underpinning): The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) was selected for patient risk assessment and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) guideline for the management of PE in cancer patients (2007) was selected as quality measure. Historical registry and audit data from our centre regarding i-PE incidence and management for the period between 2006 and 2009 illustrating the then current practices were reviewed. Phase 1 (Modelling): Modelling of the pathway included the following: a) Identification of training needs, planning and implementation of training schemes and development of transferable competencies and training materials. b) Mapping patient pathways and flow and c) Production of key documentation and Standard Operating Procedures for the delivery of the service.ResultsPhase 2 (Implementation and testing of the intervention): During the initial 12 months of implementation, remedial action was taken to address identified deficiencies regarding patient referral to the pathway, compliance with treatment protocol, patient follow up, selection challenges from the use of PESI in cancer patients and challenges regarding the "first-pass" identification of i-PE.ConclusionWe have developed and piloted a complex intervention to manage cancer patients with incidental PE in an outpatient setting. Adherence to evidence- based care, improvement of communication between professionals and patients, and improved quality of data is demonstrated.

Project description:IntroductionMany emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who meet low-risk criteria may be eligible for a short length of stay (LOS) (<24 hours), with expedited discharge home either directly from the ED or after a brief observation or hospitalization. We describe the association between expedited discharge and site of discharge on care satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) among patients with low-risk PE (PE Severity Index [PESI] Classes I-III).MethodsThis phone survey was conducted from September 2014 through April 2015 as part of a retrospective cohort study across 21 community EDs in Northern California. We surveyed low-risk patients with acute PE, treated predominantly with enoxaparin bridging and warfarin. All eligible patients were called 2-8 weeks after their index ED visit. PE-specific, patient-satisfaction questions addressed overall care, discharge instruction clarity, and LOS. We scored physical and mental QOL using a modified version of the validated Short Form Health Survey. Satisfaction and QOL were compared by LOS. For those with expedited discharge, we compared responses by site of discharge: ED vs. hospital, which included ED-based observation units. We used chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests as indicated.ResultsSurvey response rate was 82.3% (424 of 515 eligible patients). Median age of respondents was 64 years; 47.4% were male. Of the 145 patients (34.2%) with a LOS<24 hours, 65 (44.8%) were discharged home from the ED. Of all patients, 89.6% were satisfied with their overall care and 94.1% found instructions clear. Sixty-six percent were satisfied with their LOS, whereas 17.5% would have preferred a shorter LOS and 16.5% a longer LOS. There were no significant differences in satisfaction between patients with LOS<24 hours vs. ≥24 hours (p>0.13 for all). Physical QOL scores were significantly higher for expedited-discharge patients (p=0.01). Patients with expedited discharge home from the ED vs. the hospital had no significant difference in satisfaction (p>0.20 for all) or QOL (p>0.19 for all).ConclusionED patients with low-risk PE reported high satisfaction with their care in follow-up surveys. Expedited discharge (<24 hours) and site of discharge were not associated with differences in patient satisfaction.