Dataset Information

Implementation of an Anticoagulation Practice Guideline for COVID-19 via a Clinical Decision Support System in a Large Academic Health System and Its Evaluation: Observational Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Studies evaluating strategies for the rapid development, implementation, and evaluation of clinical decision support (CDS) systems supporting guidelines for diseases with a poor knowledge base, such as COVID-19, are limited.

Objective

We developed an anticoagulation clinical practice guideline (CPG) for COVID-19, which was delivered and scaled via CDS across a 12-hospital Midwest health care system. This study represents a preplanned 6-month postimplementation evaluation guided by the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework.

Methods

The implementation outcomes evaluated were reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. To evaluate effectiveness, the association of CPG adherence on hospital admission with clinical outcomes was assessed via multivariable logistic regression and nearest neighbor propensity score matching. A time-to-event analysis was conducted. Sensitivity analyses were also conducted to evaluate the competing risk of death prior to intensive care unit (ICU) admission. The models were risk adjusted to account for age, gender, race/ethnicity, non-English speaking status, area deprivation index, month of admission, remdesivir treatment, tocilizumab treatment, steroid treatment, BMI, Elixhauser comorbidity index, oxygen saturation/fraction of inspired oxygen ratio, systolic blood pressure, respiratory rate, treating hospital, and source of admission. A preplanned subgroup analysis was also conducted in patients who had laboratory values (D-dimer, C-reactive protein, creatinine, and absolute neutrophil to absolute lymphocyte ratio) present. The primary effectiveness endpoint was the need for ICU admission within 48 hours of hospital admission.

Results

A total of 2503 patients were included in this study. CDS reach approached 95% during implementation. Adherence achieved a peak of 72% during implementation. Variation was noted in adoption across sites and nursing units. Adoption was the highest at hospitals that were specifically transformed to only provide care to patients with COVID-19 (COVID-19 cohorted hospitals; 74%-82%) and the lowest in academic settings (47%-55%). CPG delivery via the CDS system was associated with improved adherence (odds ratio [OR] 1.43, 95% CI 1.2-1.7; P<.001). Adherence with the anticoagulation CPG was associated with a significant reduction in the need for ICU admission within 48 hours (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.30-0.51; P<.001) on multivariable logistic regression analysis. Similar findings were noted following 1:1 propensity score matching for patients who received adherent versus nonadherent care (21.5% vs 34.3% incidence of ICU admission within 48 hours; log-rank test P<.001).

Conclusions

Our institutional experience demonstrated that adherence with the institutional CPG delivered via the CDS system resulted in improved clinical outcomes for patients with COVID-19. CDS systems are an effective means to rapidly scale a CPG across a heterogeneous health care system. Further research is needed to investigate factors associated with adherence at low and high adopting sites and nursing units.

SUBMITTER: Shah S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8604256 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInhaled anesthetics in the operating room are potent greenhouse gases and are a key contributor to carbon emissions from health care facilities. Real-time clinical decision support (CDS) systems lower anesthetic gas waste by prompting anesthesia professionals to reduce fresh gas flow (FGF) when a set threshold is exceeded. However, previous CDS systems have relied on proprietary or highly customized anesthesia information management systems, significantly reducing other institutions' accessibility to the technology and thus limiting overall environmental benefit.ObjectiveIn 2018, a CDS system that lowers anesthetic gas waste using methods that can be easily adopted by other institutions was developed at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF). This study aims to facilitate wider uptake of our CDS system and further reduce gas waste by describing the implementation of the FGF CDS toolkit at UCSF and the subsequent implementation at other medical campuses within the University of California Health network.MethodsWe developed a noninterruptive active CDS system to alert anesthesia professionals when FGF rates exceeded 0.7 L per minute for common volatile anesthetics. The implementation process at UCSF was documented and assembled into an informational toolkit to aid in the integration of the CDS system at other health care institutions. Before implementation, presentation-based education initiatives were used to disseminate information regarding the safety of low FGF use and its relationship to environmental sustainability. Our FGF CDS toolkit consisted of 4 main components for implementation: sustainability-focused education of anesthesia professionals, hardware integration of the CDS technology, software build of the CDS system, and data reporting of measured outcomes.ResultsThe FGF CDS system was successfully deployed at 5 University of California Health network campuses. Four of the institutions are independent from the institution that created the CDS system. The CDS system was deployed at each facility using the FGF CDS toolkit, which describes the main components of the technology and implementation. Each campus made modifications to the CDS tool to best suit their institution, emphasizing the versatility and adoptability of the technology and implementation framework.ConclusionsIt has previously been shown that the FGF CDS system reduces anesthetic gas waste, leading to environmental and fiscal benefits. Here, we demonstrate that the CDS system can be transferred to other medical facilities using our toolkit for implementation, making the technology and associated benefits globally accessible to advance mitigation of health care-related emissions.

Project description:BackgroundReviews of guideline implementation recommend matching strategies to the specific setting, but provide little specific guidance about how to do so. We hypothesized that the highest level of guideline-concordant care would be achieved where implementation strategies fit well with physicians' cognitive styles.MethodsWe conducted an observational study of the implementation of guidelines for hypertension management among patients with diabetes at 43 Veterans' Health Administration medical center primary care clinics. Clinic leaders provided information about all implementation strategies employed at their sites. Guidelines implementation strategies were classified as education, motivation/incentive, or barrier reduction using a pre-specified system. Physician's cognitive styles were measured on three scales: evidence vs. experience as the basis of knowledge, sensitivity to pragmatic concerns, and conformity to local practices. Doctors' decisions were designated guideline-concordant if the patient's blood pressure was within goal range, or if the blood pressure was out of range and a dose change or medication change was initiated, or if the patient was already using medications from three classes.ResultsThe final sample included 163 physicians and 1,174 patients. All of the participating sites used one or more educational approaches to implement the guidelines. Over 90% of the sites also provided group or individual feedback on physician performance on the guidelines, and over 75% implemented some type of reminder system. A minority of sites used monetary incentives, penalties, or barrier reduction. The only type of intervention that was associated with increased guideline-concordant care in a logistic model was barrier reduction (p < 0.02). The interaction between physicians' conformity scale scores and the effect of barrier reduction was significant (p < 0.05); physicians ranking lower on the conformity scale responded more to barrier reduction.ConclusionGuidelines implementation strategies that were designed to reduce physician time pressure and task complexity were the only ones that improved performance. Education may have been necessary but was clearly not sufficient, and more was not better. Incentives had no discernible effect. Measurable physician characteristics strongly affected response to implementation strategies.

Project description:BackgroundAdaptation of high-quality practice guidelines for local use has been advanced as an efficient means to improve acceptability and applicability of evidence-informed care. In a pan-Canadian study, we examined how cancer care groups adapted pre-existing guidelines to their unique context and began implementation planning.MethodsUsing a mixed-methods, case-study design, five cases were purposefully sampled from self-identified groups and followed as they used a structured method and resources for guideline adaptation. Cases received the ADAPTE Collaboration toolkit, facilitation, methodological and logistical support, resources and assistance as required. Documentary and primary data collection methods captured individual case experience, including monthly summaries of meeting and field notes, email/telephone correspondence, and project records. Site visits, process audits, interviews, and a final evaluation forum with all cases contributed to a comprehensive account of participant experience.ResultsStudy cases took 12 to >24 months to complete guideline adaptation. Although participants appreciated the structure, most found the ADAPTE method complex and lacking practical aspects. They needed assistance establishing individual guideline mandate and infrastructure, articulating health questions, executing search strategies, appraising evidence, and achieving consensus. Facilitation was described as a multi-faceted process, a team effort, and an essential ingredient for guideline adaptation. While front-line care providers implicitly identified implementation issues during adaptation, they identified a need to add an explicit implementation planning component.ConclusionsGuideline adaptation is a positive initial step toward evidence-informed care, but adaptation (vs. 'de novo' development) did not meet expectations for reducing time or resource commitments. Undertaking adaptation is as much about the process (engagement and capacity building) as it is about the product (adapted guideline). To adequately address local concerns, cases found it necessary to also search and appraise primary studies, resulting in hybrid (adaptation plus de novo) guideline development strategies that required advanced methodological skills.Adaptation was found to be an action element in the knowledge translation continuum that required integration of an implementation perspective. Accordingly, the adaptation methodology and resources were reformulated and substantially augmented to provide practical assistance to groups not supported by a dedicated guideline panel and to provide more implementation planning support. The resulting framework is called CAN-IMPLEMENT.