Dataset Information

Impact of a multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative to reduce inappropriate usage of stress ulcer prophylaxis in hospitalized patients.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To promote effective methods to improve overutilization patterns of acid-suppressive therapy in hospitalized patients and to evaluate the impact of multidisciplinary team efforts to reduce inappropriate use of stress ulcer prophylaxis in low-risk patients.

Methods

A multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative incorporating education, medication use reviews and reconciliation, and pharmaceutical intervention was implemented in June 2018 for surgical patients hospitalized via emergency department. For the pre-post analysis and time series analysis, patients admitted during April and May were classified into the pre-intervention cohort and those admitted during July and August into the post-intervention cohort.

Results

Three hundred and seventeen patients were included in this study (153 and 164 in the pre- and post-intervention cohorts, respectively). The multidisciplinary program was effective in reducing overuse of stress ulcer prophylaxis and healthcare expenses associated with it. Biweekly education on risk factors warranting stress ulcer prophylaxis was provided for clinicians, and acid-suppressive therapy was removed from a preset list of admission orders. The incidence of inappropriate prophylaxis use declined substantially following intervention in overall patients (OR = 0.51, P = 0.01) and a significant decrease was primarily observed among non-ICU patients (OR = 0.50, P = 0.01). Interrupted time series analysis confirmed the significant decline in inappropriate use post intervention (coefficient = -0.63, P < 0.001). The total healthcare expenses associated with such overuse decreased by 58.5% from US$ 19.39 to US$ 8.04 per 100 patient-days.

Conclusions

Our multidisciplinary team efforts were associated with improvement in stress ulcer prophylaxis overuse patterns, resulting in a substantial decrease in the incidence of inappropriate use, especially in general wards, and associated healthcare costs.

SUBMITTER: Choi YJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7163370 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA large proportion of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) prescriptions, including those for stress ulcer prophylaxis (SUP), are inappropriate. Our study purpose was to systematically review the effectiveness of de-implementation strategies aimed at reducing inappropriate PPI use for SUP in hospitalized, non-intensive care unit (non-ICU) patients.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase databases (from inception to January 2020). Two authors independently screened references, performed data extraction, and critical appraisal. Randomized trials and comparative observational studies were eligible for inclusion. Criteria developed by the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) group were used for critical appraisal. Besides the primary outcome (inappropriate PPI prescription or use), secondary outcomes included (adverse) pharmaceutical effects and healthcare use.ResultsWe included ten studies in this review. Most de-implementation strategies contained an educational component (meetings and/or materials), combined with either clinical guideline implementation (n = 5), audit feedback (n = 3), organizational culture (n = 4), or reminders (n = 1). One study evaluating the de-implementation strategy effectiveness showed a significant reduction (RR 0.14; 95% CI 0.03-0.55) of new inappropriate PPI prescriptions. Out of five studies evaluating the effectiveness of de-implementing inappropriate PPI use, four found a significant reduction (RR 0.21; 95% CI 0.18-0.26 to RR 0.76; 95% CI 0.68-0.86). No significant differences in the occurrence of pharmaceutical effects (n = 1) and in length of stay (n = 3) were observed. Adverse pharmaceutical effects were reported in two studies and five studies reported on PPI or total drug costs. No pooled effect estimates were calculated because of large statistical heterogeneity between studies.DiscussionAll identified studies reported mainly educational interventions in combination with one or multiple other intervention strategies and all interventions were targeted at providers. Most studies found a small to moderate reduction of (inappropriate) PPI prescriptions or use.

Project description:BACKGROUND: With the use of medicines being a broad and extensive part of health management, mechanisms to ensure quality use of medicines are essential. Drug usage evaluation (DUE) is an evidence-based quality improvement methodology, designed to improve the quality, safety and cost-effectiveness of drug use. The purpose of this paper is to describe a national DUE methodology used to improve health care delivery across the continuum through multi-faceted intervention involving audit and feedback, academic detailing and system change, and a qualitative assessment of the methodology, as illustrated by the Acute Postoperative Pain Management (APOP) project. METHODS: An established methodology, consisting of a baseline audit of inpatient medical records, structured patient interviews and general practitioner surveys, followed by an educational intervention and follow-up audit, is used. Australian hospitals, including private, public, metropolitan and regional, are invited to participate on a voluntary basis. De-identified data collected by hospitals are collated and evaluated nationally to provide descriptive comparative analyses. Hospitals benchmark their practices against state and national results to facilitate change. The educational intervention consists of academic detailing, group education, audit and feedback, point-of-prescribing prompts and system changes. A repeat data collection is undertaken to assess changes in practice.An online qualitative survey was undertaken to evaluate the APOP program. Qualitative assessment of hospitals' perceptions of the effectiveness of the overall DUE methodology and changes in procedure/prescribing/policy/clinical practice which resulted from participation were elicited. RESULTS: 62 hospitals participated in the APOP project. Among 23 respondents to the evaluation survey, 18 (78%) reported improvements in the documentation of pain scores at their hospital. 15 (65%) strongly agreed or agreed that participation in APOP directly resulted in increased prescribing of multimodal analgesia for pain relief in postoperative patients. CONCLUSIONS: This national DUE program has facilitated the engagement and participation of a number of acute health care facilities to address issues relating to quality use of medicine. This approach has been perceived to be effective in helping them achieve improvements in patient care.