Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 3 de 3
Filtrar
Más filtros

Bases de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
JAMIA Open ; 5(2): ooac050, 2022 Jul.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35815095

RESUMEN

Objective: Computer-aided decision tools may speed recognition of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and promote consistent, timely treatment using lung-protective ventilation (LPV). This study evaluated implementation and service (process) outcomes with deployment and use of a clinical decision support (CDS) synchronous alert tool associated with existing computerized ventilator protocols and targeted patients with possible ARDS not receiving LPV. Materials and Methods: We performed an explanatory mixed methods study from December 2019 to November 2020 to evaluate CDS alert implementation outcomes across 13 intensive care units (ICU) in an integrated healthcare system with >4000 mechanically ventilated patients annually. We utilized quantitative methods to measure service outcomes including CDS alert tool utilization, accuracy, and implementation effectiveness. Attitudes regarding the appropriateness and acceptability of the CDS tool were assessed via an electronic field survey of physicians and advanced practice providers. Results: Thirty-eight percent of study encounters had at least one episode of LPV nonadherence. Addition of LPV treatment detection logic prevented an estimated 1812 alert messages (41%) over use of disease detection logic alone. Forty-eight percent of alert recommendations were implemented within 2 h. Alert accuracy was estimated at 63% when compared to gold standard ARDS adjudication, with sensitivity of 85% and positive predictive value of 62%. Fifty-seven percent of survey respondents observed one or more benefits associated with the alert. Conclusion: Introduction of a CDS alert tool based upon ARDS risk factors and integrated with computerized ventilator protocol instructions increased visibility to gaps in LPV use and promoted increased adherence to LPV.

2.
Ann Emerg Med ; 80(4): 332-343, 2022 10.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35752519

RESUMEN

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To measure the effectiveness of a multimodal strategy, including simultaneous implementation of a clinical decision support system, to sustain adherence to a clinical pathway for care of children with minor head trauma treated in general emergency departments (EDs). METHODS: Prospective, type III hybrid effectiveness-implementation cohort study with a nonrandomized stepped-wedge design and monthly repeated site measures. The study population included pediatric minor head trauma encounters from July 2018 to December 2020 at 21 urban and rural general ED sites in an integrated health care system. Sites received the intervention in 1 of 2 steps, with each site providing control and intervention observations. Measures included guideline adherence, the computed tomography (CT) scan rate, and 72-hour readmissions with clinically important traumatic brain injury. Analysis was performed using multilevel hierarchical modeling with random intercepts for the site and physician. RESULTS: During the study, 12,670 pediatric minor head trauma encounters were cared for by 339 clinicians. The implementation of the clinical pathway resulted in higher odds of guideline adherence (adjusted odds ratio 1.12 [95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.22]) and lower odds of a CT scan (adjusted odds ratio 0.96 [95% confidence interval 0.93 to 0.98]) in intervention versus control months. Absolute risk difference was observed in both guideline adherence (site median: +2.3% improvement) and the CT scan rate (site median: -6.6% reduction). No 72-hour readmissions with confirmed clinically important traumatic brain injury were identified. CONCLUSION: Implementation of a minor head trauma clinical pathway using a multimodal approach, including a clinical decision support system, led to sustained improvements in adherence and a modest, yet safe, reduction in CT scans among generally low-risk patients in diverse general EDs.


Asunto(s)
Lesiones Traumáticas del Encéfalo , Traumatismos Craneocerebrales , Niño , Estudios de Cohortes , Traumatismos Craneocerebrales/diagnóstico por imagen , Traumatismos Craneocerebrales/epidemiología , Traumatismos Craneocerebrales/terapia , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Humanos , Estudios Prospectivos , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos
3.
Implement Sci Commun ; 1(1): 67, 2020.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32835225

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation (LPV) improves outcomes for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) through the administration of low tidal volumes (≤ 6.5 ml/kg predicted body weight [PBW]) with co-titration of positive end-expiratory pressure and fraction of inspired oxygen. Many patients with ARDS, however, are not managed with LPV. The purpose of this study was to understand the implementation barriers and facilitators to the use of LPV and a computerized LPV clinical decision support (CDS) tool in intensive care units (ICUs) in preparation for a pilot hybrid implementation-effectiveness clinical trial. METHODS: We performed an explanatory sequential mixed methods study from June 2018 to March 2019 to evaluate the variation in LPV adherence across 17 ICUs in an integrated healthcare system with > 4000 mechanically ventilated patients annually. We analyzed 47 key informant interviews of ICU physicians, respiratory therapists (RTs), and nurses in 3 of the ICUs using a qualitative content analysis paradigm to investigate site variation as defined by adherence level (low, medium, high) and to identify barriers and facilitators to LPV and LPV CDS tool use. RESULTS: Forty-two percent of patients had an initial set tidal volume of ≤ 6.5 ml/kg PBW during the measurement period (site range 21-80%). LPV CDS tool use was 28% (site range 6-91%). This study's main findings revealed multi-factorial facilitators and barriers to use that varied by ICU site adherence level. The primary facilitator was that LPV and the LPV CDS tool could be used on all mechanically ventilated patients. Barriers included a persistent gap between clinician attitudes regarding the use of LPV and actual use, the perceived loss of autonomy associated with using a computerized protocol, the nature of physician-RT interaction in ventilation management, and the lack of clear organization measures of success. CONCLUSIONS: Variation in adherence to LPV persists in ICUs within a healthcare delivery system that was an early adopter of LPV. Potentially promising strategies to increase adherence to LPV and the LPV CDS tool for ARDS patients include initiating low tidal ventilation on all mechanically ventilated patients, establishing and measuring adherence measures, and focused education addressing the physician-RT interaction. These strategies represent a blueprint for a future hybrid implementation-effectiveness trial.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA