Thompson, Kristine M.

Background: The use of validated risk stratification tools for the workup of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) is a recommendation of the American Society of Hematology and the American College of Emergency Physicians. Methods: We designed and implemented electronic clinical pretest probability (PTP) tools for use in emergency departments (ED). Overall, 38 EDs (tertiary and regional EDs) in the United States were involved across three health systems. PTP use was analyzed between September 12, 2022 and January 11, 2023 in 270,247 ED visits. PTP use was examined in terms of the percentage of visits for which patients underwent computed tomography pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Each site chose the 3-tier Wells’ score for implementation and Site 2 designed a combined Wells’, pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), and YEARS score. Results: At Site 3, forced use resulted in documented PTP scores in 49–53% of ordered CTPAs. At Sites 1 and 2, where PTP scores were optional, documented PTP scores occurred in 2–3% and 1–3% of CTPA orders, respectively. At Site 1, the use of PTP increased slightly over the study period, with signs that PE yield on imaging was also increasing (3.4–5.9%). At Site 2, PE yield on imaging was 9–10%, and it remained similar, with similar use of PTP tools over the study period. PE yield (6–8%) on imaging also remained similar throughout the study at Site 3. Conclusions: Guideline-endorsed PTP scores for PE at three independent health systems in the United States did not increase PE yield on imaging. Novel implementation strategies involving interdisciplinary teams are urgently needed.

Introduction: Use of validated risk stratification tools for work up of suspected pulmonary embolism (PE) is an endorsed recommendation of the American Society of Hematology and the American College of Emergency Physicians. Due to variations in clinical practice, electronic health record (EHR) systems, and medical provider trainings, the use, documentation, and implementation of these tools vary widely. Current processes do not allow for electronic capture and quality reporting at most institutions. Methods: We sought to design and implement clinical pre-test probability (PTP) tools at three large healthcare institutions for use in emergency departments (ED). At each site, a hematologist partnered with ED physician leadership and local information technology experts to design and implement PTP tools in clinical workflows. Overall, 38 EDs (high volume tertiary EDs and smaller regional EDs) located in the United States along the East Coast and Midwest regions were involved. A major goal of implementation was integration into clinical workflow and automatic documentation. After design and implementation, awareness and education of the new EHR tool was distributed electronically to ED providers. After implementation, use of PTP tools was analyzed between September 12, 2022 and January 11, 2023. PTP use was examined as percent of visits for which patients underwent CT pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Results: Each institution chose the 3 tier Wells' Score for implementation while one site designed an integrated Wells'/PERC or YEARS score calculator. Two sites implemented the tool as an optional flowsheet and one site implemented the tool as mandatory parameters within the orders for PE imaging studies. The mandatory tool could be bypassed with prespecified selections or if a D-dimer existed within 48 hours . Complete details of the site-specific implementation are shown in Table 1. Over the 4-month evaluation timeframe, there was a total of 270,214 ED encounters. Uptake and utilization of the PTP tools are shown in Table 2. Use of PTP was highest at the site with forced PTP documentation which ranged from 49-53% of ordered CTPAs, compared to Site 2 where use was 2-3%, and Site 1 where use ranged from 1-3%. At Site 1, use of PTP increased slightly over the study period with signs that PE yield on imaging was increasing as well (3.4% to 5.9%). At Site 2, PE yield on imaging was overall high (9-10%), and remained similar with similar use of PTP tools over the study period. Use of PTP and PE yield (6-8%) on imaging also remained similar throughout the study at Site 3. Conclusion: Forced use of PTP within the orders for CTPA led to the highest use of PTP (Site 3) but this did not result in meaningfully higher PE yield on CTPA compared to the other sites. PE yield at each site was at or above the 5% yield for PE on CTPA which has been previously reported. Given that PTP uptake was relatively stable over the measurement period at Site 2 and 3, this indicates the process had mostly stabilized and that other strategies are needed to improve uptake of PTP, reduce utilization of CTPA, and further increase yield on CTPA. Increasing PTP use and rising PE yield at Site 1 demonstrated ongoing potential for improvements past this study timeframe.

Introduction Pulmonary Embolism (PE) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Diagnosis is essential as untreated PE has a 30% mortality rate. Currently, computer tomography pulmonary angiogram (CTPA) is the standard of care to diagnose PE. However, this modality is expensive, exposes patients to radiation and increases risk of contrast induced nephropathy. Furthermore, only 5% of CTPAs performed are positive for PE signifying that many unnecessary tests are being performed. To address this gap, Pre-Test Probability (PTP) tools have been developed to safely exclude patients with low risk of PE and limit iatrogenic harm from over testing. Despite the tools being developed over 20 years ago, they are not widely available in electronic health record (EHR) systems and even when they are built in, uptake remains low. Methods Three large integrated health systems using Epic EHR systems across five states (MA, WI. MN, AZ, FL) built electronic PTP assessments into their EHR systems to safely exclude patients with low risk of PE and limit over testing. Two sites made the PTP optional, and one site made it a forced function (providers were forced to complete PTP prior to ordering CTPA unless a D-dimer result was present in the prior 48 hours). To assess the usability of these EHR tools, the team conducted a survey with ED clinicians across the three test sites. The survey was created to identify which PE risk stratification methods were employed by ED clinicians (EHR embedded PTP tool, apps on their phone, web applications like MDcalc, calculations from memory, or if they relied on clinical gestalt), and to identify barriers to using the EHR embedded PTP. Results Site 1 had 47 respondents, Site 2 had 94 respondents, and Site 3 had 16 respondents. Two key findings emerged from the survey (Figure 1). First, clinicians used a variety of risk stratification approaches and few of them documented their risk assessments in structured fields in the medical record. Second, clinical gestalt was the most used PE risk stratification approach, and this was true across all three test sites. In addition, the health system with a PTP prompt before clinicians could proceed with CTPA orders (Site 3) did not have a higher percentage of clinicians who reported using the EHR embedded tool than sites that did not prompt clinicians to fill in the PTP. Clinicians cited a variety of different barriers to using the EHR embedded PTP tool (Table 1). Conclusion While many clinicians indicated intermittent use of PTP criteria to aid in the diagnosis of PE, risk factors and scores from phone apps, web tools, and calculations from memory are unlikely to be documented in the patient's medical record, which means that they are not accessible to all members of the ED care team and cannot be used for electronic clinical quality measure. The biggest hurdles to increasing the use of structured PTP assessments in the ED setting to safely exclude PE and limit iatrogenic harm from over testing are (1) obtaining buy-in from ED clinicians that the PTP tools provide value over clinical gestalt, at least for a subset of patients who could most benefit, and (2) identifying best practices for incorporating PTP tools into EHR systems that make the tools easier to access and use 3) developing and implementing effective education and awareness programs around the PTP tools. This survey adds to the body of literature on PTP assessments in the ED setting and can help inform further research that is needed to continue to improve the diagnosis of PE. Funding: This project is funded in part by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation through Grant GBMF10778 to the American Society of Hematology.

Abstract Background Early diagnosis, prognostication, and treatment initiation are the cornerstones of sepsis management. There remains an immense interest in exploring the diagnostic and prognostic roles of neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) in the sepsis population. Methods We performed a retrospective multi-center observational study including patients admitted to different Mayo Clinic sites with a diagnosis of sepsis between October 2018 and August 2022. Patients were excluded if they were aged < 18 years, lacked research authorization, or had missing Neutrophil or Lymphocyte count at admission. Data were collected from an existing sepsis database and Mayo Data Explorer (MDE). Categorical variables were summarized as percentages and continuous variables were summarized as medians. Chi-square test for significance, independent sample t-test, and multivariate Cox Proportional Hazard models were performed on IBM SPSS Statistics v28.0. Results Our study cohort consisted of 13968 patients, of which the majority were males (55.9%), Caucasian (91.6%), and non-Hispanic or Latino (94.3%). The median age of the cohort was 71 (60, 80) years, and the median BMI was 27.7 (23.4, 33.3) kg/m2. Among all sepsis patients, 6.0% had a positive blood culture and the most common organisms were E. coli (26.5%), Klebsiella sp. (15.6%), Streptococcus sp. (12.8%) and Staphylococcus aureus (9.9%). 13131 patients (94.1%) survived the hospital stay and 837 (5.9%) did not. There was no difference in mortality based on blood culture positivity status (6.0% vs 6.6%, p=0.41). However, the median NLR was higher among patients with a positive blood culture (16.4 vs. 12.1, p< 0.001) and among non-survivors (14.3 vs 12.2, p< 0.001). NLR did not significantly vary based on the type of organism growing in the blood culture. A multivariate model revealed NLR as an independent predictor of mortality (HR 1.003, 95% CI: 1.000-1.006, p=0.029) after adjusting for comorbidities, baseline clinical and laboratory variables. (Tables 1 & 2) Conclusion Our retrospective multicentric study showed that the Neutrophil-Lymphocyte ratio at admission was higher among bacteremic sepsis patients and non-survivors. Further prospective studies are needed to explore its diagnostic and prognostic utility. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

ImportanceDirect oral anticoagulant (DOAC)–associated intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) has high morbidity and mortality. The safety and outcome data of DOAC reversal agents in ICH are limited.ObjectiveTo evaluate the safety and outcomes of DOAC reversal agents among patients with ICH.Data SourcesPubMed, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, EBSCO, Web of Science, and CINAHL databases were searched from inception through April 29, 2022.Study SelectionThe eligibility criteria were (1) adult patients (age ≥18 years) with ICH receiving treatment with a DOAC, (2) reversal of DOAC, and (3) reported safety and anticoagulation reversal outcomes. All nonhuman studies and case reports, studies evaluating patients with ischemic stroke requiring anticoagulation reversal or different dosing regimens of DOAC reversal agents, and mixed study groups with DOAC and warfarin were excluded.Data Extraction and SynthesisPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines were used for abstracting data and assessing data quality and validity. Two reviewers independently selected the studies and abstracted data. Data were pooled using the random-effects model.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was proportion with anticoagulation reversed. The primary safety end points were all-cause mortality and thromboembolic events after the reversal agent.ResultsA total of 36 studies met criteria for inclusion, with a total of 1832 patients (967 receiving 4-factor prothrombin complex concentrate [4F-PCC]; 525, andexanet alfa [AA]; 340, idarucizumab). The mean age was 76 (range, 68-83) years, and 57% were men. For 4F-PCC, anticoagulation reversal was 77% (95% CI, 72%-82%; I2 = 55%); all-cause mortality, 26% (95% CI, 20%-32%; I2 = 68%), and thromboembolic events, 8% (95% CI, 5%-12%; I2 = 41%). For AA, anticoagulation reversal was 75% (95% CI, 67%-81%; I2 = 48%); all-cause mortality, 24% (95% CI, 16%-34%; I2 = 73%), and thromboembolic events, 14% (95% CI, 10%-19%; I2 = 16%). Idarucizumab for reversal of dabigatran had an anticoagulation reversal rate of 82% (95% CI, 55%-95%; I2 = 41%), all-cause mortality, 11% (95% CI, 8%-15%, I2 = 0%), and thromboembolic events, 5% (95% CI, 3%-8%; I2 = 0%). A direct retrospective comparison of 4F-PCC and AA showed no differences in anticoagulation reversal, proportional mortality, or thromboembolic events.Conclusions and RelevanceIn the absence of randomized clinical comparison trials, the overall anticoagulation reversal, mortality, and thromboembolic event rates in this systematic review and meta-analysis appeared similar among available DOAC reversal agents for managing ICH. Cost, institutional formulary status, and availability may restrict reversal agent choice, particularly in small community hospitals.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the most common cause of preventable mortality following colorectal surgery (CRS), occurring in about 2% of patients. As a result, prophylaxis including discharge chemoprophylaxis is recommended. While VTE risk assessment tools are available, the consistent adoption and utilization of these tools remains elusive. Our study objectives were to determine the utilization and impact of risk adjusted VTE prophylaxis in CRS patients. Study Design CRS cases performed between 1/1/2016 and 5/31/2021 were retrospectively analyzed. Caprini score and implemented VTE prophylaxis measures were determined. The primary outcome measure was receiving Caprini guideline indicated VTE prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes included VTE and bleeding. Categorical variables were compared by chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests, and continuous variables by Kruskal-Wallis test. Logistic regression models were used to determine predictors of receiving appropriate VTE prophylaxis or experiencing postoperative VTE and bleeding. Results 10,422 CRS cases were analyzed and 90.6% were high risk for VTE. In-hospital appropriate prophylaxis rates in low, moderate, high, and very high-risk category patients were 91.2%, 56.1%, 61.0%, and 63.1%, respectively. Inpatient VTE was reduced by 75% in those receiving appropriate VTE prophylaxis. At discharge, 5.8% of patients received appropriate prophylaxis, in whom there were no VTE events at 30- and 90 days from discharge. Increasing Caprini score positively correlated with VTE risk in both the inpatient and discharge cohorts, but inversely correlated with the likelihood of receiving appropriate prophylaxis at discharge (OR .31, P <.0001). Conclusion Caprini guideline indicated VTE prophylaxis in CRS patients reduced VTE events without increasing bleeding complications.

Background Emergency Medicine Telehealth (TeleEM) represents an opportunity to work directly with referral centres, rural facilities and underserved areas to mitigate unnecessary testing, optimise resource utilisation and facilitate patient transfers across health systems. To optimise the impact of a TeleEM programme, a tool is needed to remotely monitor patient activity in multiple emergency department facilities, concurrently. Methods After identifying data sources for activation criteria put forth by the TeleEM operations group, rules were constructed within the electronic health record to facilitate data checks and ultimately produce a yes/no response if the category’s conditions were met. Responses were organised into a table, with functionality allowing end users to drill into the different sites to see patient-specific information for patients meeting activation criteria. Conclusions The TeleEM dashboard allows for proactive engagement by the TeleEM physician and strengthens the team-based approach of critically ill.

ABSTRACTBackgroundAlarm fatigue (AF) is a distressing factor for staff and patients in the hospital. Using cardiac telemetry (CT) without clinical indications can create unnecessary alarms, and increase AF and cost of healthcare. We sought to reduce AF and cost associated with CT monitoring.MethodsAfter implementing a new protocol for CT placement, data were collected on telemetry orders, alarms and bed cost for 13 weeks from 1 January 2015 through 31 March 2015. We also retrospectively collected data on the same variables for the 13 weeks prior to the intervention. A survey was administered to nurses to assess past and present perceptions of AF. Interventions included protocol creation and education for participants.ResultsAt baseline, 77% of patients were monitored with CT. A total of 145 (31%) order discrepancies were discovered during data collection, of which 72% had no indication for CT, so CT was discontinued. The other 28% had indications, so orders were placed. A total of 8336 alarms were recorded during 4 weeks of data collection, of which 333 (4%) were classified as true actionable alarms. Postintervention data showed 67% CT assignment with 10% reduction in CT usage, with no increase in mortality (p&lt;0.001 and &gt;0.05, respectively). A 42% cost reduction was achieved after adjusting the patient status. Nurses reported 27% perceived reduction in AF. One-year follow-up revealed that 69% of patients were being monitored by CT, and the rate of order discrepancies due to lack of indication was 9%.ConclusionAll hospital units may benefit from the protocols created during this study. If applied appropriately, these protocols can lead to reduced AF and cost per episode of care.

The majority of quality measures used to assess providers and hospitals are based on easily obtained data, focused on a few dimensions of quality, and developed mainly for primary/community care and population health. While this approach supports efforts focused on addressing the triple aim of health care, many current quality report cards and assessments do not reflect the breadth or complexity of many referral center practices. In this article, the authors highlight the differences between population health efforts and referral care and address issues related to value measurement and performance assessment. They discuss why measures may need to differ across the three levels of care (primary/community care, secondary care, complex care) and illustrate the need for further risk adjustment to eliminate referral bias. With continued movement toward value-based purchasing, performance measures and reimbursement schemes need to reflect the increased level of intensity required to provide complex care. The authors propose a framework to operationalize value measurement and payment for specialty care, and they make specific recommendations to improve performance measurement for complex patients. Implementing such a framework to differentiate performance measures by level of care involves coordinated efforts to change both policy and operational platforms. An essential component of this framework is a new model that defines the characteristics of patients who require complex care and standardizes metrics that incorporate those definitions.