Improving Discharge Safety in a Pediatric Emergency Department.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Discharge from the emergency department (ED) involves a complex series of steps to ensure a safe transition to home and follow-up care. Preventable, discharge-related serious safety events (SSEs) in our ED highlighted local vulnerabilities. We aimed to improve ED discharge by implementing a standardized discharge process with emphasis on multidisciplinary communication and family engagement. METHODS: At a tertiary children's hospital, we used the model for improvement to revise discharge care. Interventions included a new discharge checklist, a provider huddle emphasizing discharge vital signs, and a scripted discharge review of instructions with families. We used statistical process control to evaluate performance. Primary outcomes included elimination of preventable, discharge-related SSEs and Press Ganey survey results assessing caregiver information for care of child at home. A secondary outcome was number of days between preventable low-level (near-miss, no or minimal harm) events. Process measures included discharge checklist adoption and vital sign acquisition. Balancing measures were length of stay (LOS) and return rates. RESULTS: Over the study period, there were no preventable SSEs and low-level event frequency improved to a peak of >150 days between events. Press Ganey responses regarding quality of discharge information did not change (62%). Checklist use was rapidly adopted, reaching 94%. Vital sign acquisition increased from 67% to 83%. There was no change in the balancing measures of median LOS or return visit rates. CONCLUSIONS: The development and implementation of a standardized discharge process led to the elimination of reported discharge-related events, without increasing LOS or return visits.

Safely Reducing Hospitalizations for Anaphylaxis in Children Through an Evidence-Based Guideline.

BACKGROUND: Emergency department visits for anaphylaxis have increased considerably over the past few decades, especially among children. Despite this, anaphylaxis management remains highly variable and contributes to significant health care spending. On the basis of emerging evidence, in this quality improvement project we aimed to safely decrease hospitalization rates, increase the use of cetirizine, and decrease use of corticosteroids for children with anaphylaxis by December 31, 2019. METHODS: A multipronged intervention strategy including a revised evidence-based guideline was implemented at a tertiary children's teaching hospital by using the Model for Improvement. Statistical process control was used to evaluate for changes in key measures. Length of stay and unplanned return visits within 72 hours were monitored as process and balancing measures, respectively. As a national comparison, hospitalization rates were compared with other hospitals' data from the Pediatric Health Information System. RESULTS: Hospitalizations decreased significantly from 28.5% to 11.2% from preimplementation to implementation, and the balancing measure of 72-hour revisits was stable. The proportion of patients receiving cetirizine increased significantly from 4.2% to 59.7% and use of corticosteroids decreased significantly from 72.6% to 32.4% in patients without asthma. The proportion of patients meeting length of stay criteria increased from 53.3% to 59.9%. Hospitalization rates decreased nationally over time. CONCLUSIONS: We reduced hospitalizations for anaphylaxis by 17.3% without concomitant increases in revisits, demonstrating that unnecessary hospitalizations can be safely avoided. The use of a local evidence-based guideline paired with close outcome monitoring and sustained messaging and feedback to clinicians can effectively improve anaphylaxis management.

The Learning Curve for Shared Decision-making in Symptomatic Aortic Stenosis.

Importance: Shared decision-making (SDM) is widely advocated for patients with valvular heart disease yet is not integrated into the heart team model for patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis. Decision aids (DAs) have been shown to improve patient-centered outcomes and may facilitate SDM. Objective: To determine whether the repeated use of a DA by heart teams is associated with greater SDM, along with improved patient-centered outcomes and clinician attitudes about DAs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This mixed-methods study included a nonrandomized pre-post intervention and clinician interviews. It was conducted between April 30, 2015, and December 7, 2017, with quantitative analysis performed between January 12, 2017, and May 26, 2017, within 2 academic medical centers in northern New England among 35 patients with symptomatic aortic stenosis who were at high to prohibitive risk for surgery. The qualitative analysis was performed between August 6, 2018, and May 7, 2019. The Severe Aortic Stenosis Decision Aid was delivered by 6 clinicians, with patients choosing between transcatheter aortic valve replacement and medical management. Main Outcomes and Measures: Clinician SDM performance was measured using the Observer OPTION5 scale with dual-independent coding of audiotaped clinic visits. Previsit and postvisit surveys measured the patient's knowledge, satisfaction, and decisional conflict. Audiotaped clinician interviews were coded, and qualitative thematic analysis was performed. Results: Six male clinicians and 35 patients (19 of 34 women [55.9%; 1 survey was missing]; mean [SD] age, 85.8 [7.8] years) participated in the study. Shared decision-making increased stepwise with repeated use of the DA (mean [SD] Observer OPTION5 scores: usual care, 17.9 [7.6]; first use of a DA, 60.5 [30.9]; fifth use of a DA, 79.0 [8.4]; P < .001 for comparison between usual care and fifth use of DA). Multiple uses of the DA were associated with increased patient knowledge (mean difference, 18.0%; 95% CI, 1.2%-34.8%; P = .04) and satisfaction (mean difference, 6.7%; 95% CI, 2.5%-10.8%; P = .01) but not decisional conflict (mean [SD]: usual care, 96.0% [9.4%]; first use of DA, 93.8% [12.5%]; fifth use of DA, 95.0% [11.2%]; P = .60). Qualitative analysis of clinicians' interviews revealed that clinicians perceived that they used an SDM approach without DAs and that the DA was not well understood by elderly patients. There was infrequent values clarification or discussion of stroke risk. Conclusion and Relevance: In a mixed-methods pilot study, use of a DA for severe aortic stenosis by heart team clinicians was associated with improved SDM and patient-centered outcomes. However, in qualitative interviews, heart team clinicians did not perceive a significant benefit of the DA, and therefore sustained implementation is unlikely. This pilot study of SDM clarifies new research directions for heart teams.