Preoperative Anticoagulation Management in Everyday Clinical Practice: An International Comparative Analysis of Work-as-Done Using the Functional Resonance Analysis Method.

OBJECTIVES: Preoperative anticoagulation management (PAM) is a complex, multidisciplinary process important to patient safety. The Functional Resonance Analysis Method (FRAM) is a novel method to study how complex processes usually go right at the frontline (labeled Safety-II) and how this relates to predefined procedures. This study aimed to assess PAM in everyday practice and explore the usability and utility of FRAM. METHODS: The study was conducted at an Australian and European Cardiothoracic Surgery Department. A FRAM model of work-as-imagined was developed using (inter)national guidelines. Semistructured interviews with 18 involved professionals were used to develop models reflecting work-as-done at both sites, which were presented to staff for validation. Workload in hours was estimated per process step. RESULTS: In both centers, work-as-done differed from work-as-imagined, such as in the division of tasks among disciplines (e.g., nurses/registrars rather than medical specialists), but control mechanisms had been developed locally to ensure safe care (e.g., crosschecking with other clinicians). Centers had organized the process differently, revealing opportunities for improvement regarding patient information and clustering of clinic visits. Presenting FRAM models to staff initiated discussion on improvement of functions in the model that are vital for success. Overall workload was estimated at 47 hours per site. CONCLUSIONS: This FRAM analysis provided insight into PAM from the perspective of frontline clinicians, revealing essential functions, interdependencies and variability, and the relation with guidelines. Future studies are warranted to study the potential of FRAM, such as for guiding improvements in complex systems.

How reliable is perioperative anticoagulant management? Determining guideline compliance and practice variation by a retrospective patient record review.

OBJECTIVES: Surgery in patients on anticoagulants requires careful monitoring and risk assessment to prevent harm. Required interruptions of anticoagulants and deciding whether to use bridging anticoagulation add further complexity. This process, known as perioperative anticoagulant management (PAM), is optimised by using guidelines. Optimal PAM prevents thromboembolic and bleeding complications. The purpose of this study was to assess the reliability of PAM practice in Dutch hospitals. Additionally, the variations between hospitals and different bridging dosages were studied. DESIGN: A multicentre retrospective patient record review. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Records from 268 patients using vitamin-K antagonist (VKA) anticoagulants who underwent surgery in a representative random sample of 13 Dutch hospitals were reviewed, 259 were analysed. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Our primary outcome measure was the reliability of PAM expressed as the percentage of patients receiving guideline compliant care. Seven PAM steps were included. Secondary outcome measures included different bridging dosages used and an analysis of practice variation on the hospital level. RESULTS: Preoperative compliance was lowest for timely VKA interruptions: 58.8% (95% CI 50.0% to 67.7%) and highest for timely preoperative assessments: 81% (95% CI 75.0% to 86.5%). Postoperative compliance was lowest for timely VKA restarts: 39.9% (95% CI 33.1% to 46.7%) and highest for the decision to apply bridging: 68.5% (95% CI 62.3% to 74.8%). Variation in compliance between hospitals was present for the timely preoperative assessment (range 41%-100%), international normalised ratio testing (range 21%-94%) and postoperative bridging (range 20%-88%). Subtherapeutic bridging was used in 50.5% of patients and increased with patients' weight. CONCLUSIONS: Unsatisfying compliance for most PAM steps, reflect suboptimal reliability of PAM. Furthermore, the hospital performance varied. This increases the risk for adverse events, warranting quality improvement. The development of process measures can help but will be complicated by the availability of a strong supporting evidence base and integrated care delivery regarding PAM.