Organisation of care for patients using direct oral anticoagulants.

Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are recommended by several scientific societies as first-line therapy for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation. However, there is uncertainty regarding the organisation of anticoagulation care, with various caregivers being involved. Patients and caregivers are often confronted by uncertainty about the coordination of treatment. With the functional resonance analysis method we visualised the process of anticoagulation care in daily practice in the Maastricht region. This resulted in recommendations on how to improve the organisation of anticoagulation care for DOAC patients.

Guideline compliance for bridging anticoagulation use in vitamin-K antagonist patients; practice variation and factors associated with non-compliance.

BACKGROUND: Bridging anticoagulation is used in vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) patients undergoing invasive procedures and involves complex risk assessment in order to prevent thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes. OBJECTIVES: Our aim was to assess guideline compliance and identify factors associated with bridging and especially, non-compliant bridging. METHODS: A retrospective review of 256 patient records in 13 Dutch hospitals was performed. Demographic, clinical, surgical and care delivery characteristics were collected. Compliance to the American College of Chest Physicians ninth edition guideline (AT9) was assessed. Multilevel regression models were built to explain bridging use and predict non-compliance. RESULTS: Bridging use varied from 15.0 to 83.3% (mean = 41.8%) of patients per hospital, whereas guideline compliance varied from 20.0 to 88.2% (mean = 68.5%) per hospital. Both established thromboembolic risk factors and characteristics outside thromboembolic risk assessment were associated with bridging use. Predictors for overuse were gastrointestinal surgery (OR 14.85, 95% CI 2.69-81.99), vascular surgery (OR 13.01, 95% CI 1.83-92.30), non-elective surgery (OR 8.67, 95% CI 1.67-45.14), lowest 25th percentile socioeconomic status (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.11-1.02) and use of VKA reversal agents (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04-1.16). CONCLUSION: Bridging anticoagulation practice was not compliant with the AT9 in 31.5% of patients. The aggregated AT9 thromboembolic risk was inferior to individual thromboembolic risk factors and other characteristics in explaining bridging use. Therefor the AT9 risk seems less important for the decision making in everyday practice. Additionally, a heterogeneous implementation of the guideline between hospitals was found. Further research and interventions are needed to improve bridging anticoagulation practice in VKA patients.

Measurement of generic patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in an acute admission unit: A feasibility study.

OBJECTIVE: Measuring patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is a challenge in Acute Admission Units (AAUs), where patients present with a variety of pathologies. Generic PROMs may be used to measure the quality of care in this population. The main objective of this study was to assess the feasibility of measuring generic PROMs in a Dutch AAU. DESIGN: Longitudinal cohort study Setting: An AAU of a tertiary hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands Participants: 123 patients admitted to the AAU during 5 weeks in May and June 2015 METHODS: Patients admitted to the AAU were asked to fill out a questionnaire relating to three time points: 7 days before, during, and within 2 weeks after admission. Additionally, patients were asked to report on their experienced level of safety on the AAU and the contribution of the AAU to their recovery. RESULTS: There were significant trends in generic PROMs for all three domains. Physical functioning decreased during hospital admission and almost fully returned to the previous level after discharge. Satisfaction with social role and anxiety significantly decreased over time. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring generic PROMs in the AAU is feasible. The analysis of the PROMs took little effort and results could be reported back to the healthcare workers on the AAU quickly. Patients appreciated being asked about their own perceived health and the quality of care. Given that this is the first study focusing on PROMs in AAU patients in the Netherlands, future studies with larger sample sizes, and from other nations are needed to further investigate PROMs in this patient group to establish International reference values.

Guidelines' risk assessment recommendations for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: A comparison and implementability appraisal.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines for non-surgical patients recommend VTE- and bleeding risk assessment to guide prophylactic strategies. These recommendations differ between guidelines and implementation is suboptimal. Assessing a guideline's implementability characteristics helps predicting the ease of implementation and reveals barriers. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare guidelines' risk assessment recommendations and critically appraise the implementability characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Two guidelines, one from the American College of Chest Physicians and one from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence were selected for comparison. Risk assessment methods and subsequent prophylactic recommendations were compared. Eight experts then appraised the guideline recommendations on intrinsic implementability characteristics using the GuideLine Implementability Appraisal (GLIA) instrument. GLIA identifies barriers and facilitators for guideline implementation in nine dimensions. RESULTS: Eleven out of 20 individual VTE-risk factors and 2 out of 19 individual bleeding-risk factors used, were present in both guidelines. Additionally, a high VTE- or bleeding risk was defined differently between the two guidelines. The GLIA appraisal identified implementation barriers within all recommendations analyzed. On content level, barriers were identified in recommendations addressing bleeding risk assessment, mechanical prophylaxis and critical care patients. On implementability level, barriers were identified in decidability, flexibility, effect on process of care and computability dimensions. CONCLUSION: Depending on the guideline used, VTE-prophylaxis will most likely be provided to different non-surgical patient populations, primarily due to discordance in bleeding risk assessment. Revising the recommendations, taking into account the most apparent implementation barriers, should be considered. However, insufficient evidence to support the recommendations currently complicates this.