Dreyfuss, Didier

OBJECTIVES: Among patients with severe acute kidney injury (AKI) admitted to the ICU in high-income countries, regional practice variations for fluid balance (FB) management, timing, and choice of renal replacement therapy (RRT) modality may be significant. DESIGN: Secondary post hoc analysis of the STandard vs. Accelerated initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Acute Kidney Injury (STARRT-AKI) trial (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT02568722). SETTING: One hundred-fifty-three ICUs in 13 countries. PATIENTS: Altogether 2693 critically ill patients with AKI, of whom 994 were North American, 1143 European, and 556 from Australia and New Zealand (ANZ). INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Total mean FB to a maximum of 14 days was +7199 mL in North America, +5641 mL in Europe, and +2211 mL in ANZ (p < 0.001). The median time to RRT initiation among patients allocated to the standard strategy was longest in Europe compared with North America and ANZ (p < 0.001; p < 0.001). Continuous RRT was the initial RRT modality in 60.8% of patients in North America and 56.8% of patients in Europe, compared with 96.4% of patients in ANZ (p < 0.001). After adjustment for predefined baseline characteristics, compared with North American and European patients, those in ANZ were more likely to survive to ICU (p < 0.001) and hospital discharge (p < 0.001) and to 90 days (for ANZ vs. Europe: risk difference [RD], –11.3%; 95% CI, –17.7% to –4.8%; p < 0.001 and for ANZ vs. North America: RD, –10.3%; 95% CI, –17.5% to –3.1%; p = 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Among STARRT-AKI trial centers, significant regional practice variation exists regarding FB, timing of initiation of RRT, and initial use of continuous RRT. After adjustment, such practice variation was associated with lower ICU and hospital stay and 90-day mortality among ANZ patients compared with other regions.

AbstractHow to deliver best care in various clinical settings remains a vexing problem. All pertinent healthcare-related questions have not, cannot, and will not be addressable with costly time- and resource-consuming controlled clinical trials. At present, evidence-based guidelines can address only a small fraction of the types of care that clinicians deliver. Furthermore, underserved areas rarely can access state-of-the-art evidence-based guidelines in real-time, and often lack the wherewithal to implement advanced guidelines. Care providers in such settings frequently do not have sufficient training to undertake advanced guideline implementation. Nevertheless, in advanced modern healthcare delivery environments, use of eActions (validated clinical decision support systems) could help overcome the cognitive limitations of overburdened clinicians. Widespread use of eActions will require surmounting current healthcare technical and cultural barriers and installing clinical evidence/data curation systems. The authors expect that increased numbers of evidence-based guidelines will result from future comparative effectiveness clinical research carried out during routine healthcare delivery within learning healthcare systems.

AbstractClinical decision-making is based on knowledge, expertise, and authority, with clinicians approving almost every intervention—the starting point for delivery of “All the right care, but only the right care,” an unachieved healthcare quality improvement goal. Unaided clinicians suffer from human cognitive limitations and biases when decisions are based only on their training, expertise, and experience. Electronic health records (EHRs) could improve healthcare with robust decision-support tools that reduce unwarranted variation of clinician decisions and actions. Current EHRs, focused on results review, documentation, and accounting, are awkward, time-consuming, and contribute to clinician stress and burnout. Decision-support tools could reduce clinician burden and enable replicable clinician decisions and actions that personalize patient care. Most current clinical decision-support tools or aids lack detail and neither reduce burden nor enable replicable actions. Clinicians must provide subjective interpretation and missing logic, thus introducing personal biases and mindless, unwarranted, variation from evidence-based practice. Replicability occurs when different clinicians, with the same patient information and context, come to the same decision and action. We propose a feasible subset of therapeutic decision-support tools based on credible clinical outcome evidence: computer protocols leading to replicable clinician actions (eActions). eActions enable different clinicians to make consistent decisions and actions when faced with the same patient input data. eActions embrace good everyday decision-making informed by evidence, experience, EHR data, and individual patient status. eActions can reduce unwarranted variation, increase quality of clinical care and research, reduce EHR noise, and could enable a learning healthcare system.