Ambulatory antibiotic prescription rates for acute respiratory infection rebound two years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, acute respiratory infection (ARI) antibiotic prescribing in ambulatory care markedly decreased. It is unclear if antibiotic prescription rates will remain lowered. METHODS: We used trend analyses of antibiotics prescribed during and after the first wave of COVID-19 to determine whether ARI antibiotic prescribing rates in ambulatory care have remained suppressed compared to pre-COVID-19 levels. Retrospective data was used from patients with ARI or UTI diagnosis code(s) for their encounter from 298 primary care and 66 urgent care practices within four academic health systems in New York, Wisconsin, and Utah between January 2017 and June 2022. The primary measures included antibiotic prescriptions per 100 non-COVID ARI encounters, encounter volume, prescribing trends, and change from expected trend. RESULTS: At baseline, during and after the first wave, the overall ARI antibiotic prescribing rates were 54.7, 38.5, and 54.7 prescriptions per 100 encounters, respectively. ARI antibiotic prescription rates saw a statistically significant decline after COVID-19 onset (step change -15.2, 95% CI: -19.6 to -4.8). During the first wave, encounter volume decreased 29.4% and, after the first wave, remained decreased by 188%. After the first wave, ARI antibiotic prescription rates were no longer significantly suppressed from baseline (step change 0.01, 95% CI: -6.3 to 6.2). There was no significant difference between UTI antibiotic prescription rates at baseline versus the end of the observation period. CONCLUSIONS: The decline in ARI antibiotic prescribing observed after the onset of COVID-19 was temporary, not mirrored in UTI antibiotic prescribing, and does not represent a long-term change in clinician prescribing behaviors. During a period of heightened awareness of a viral cause of ARI, a substantial and clinically meaningful decrease in clinician antibiotic prescribing was observed. Future efforts in antibiotic stewardship may benefit from continued study of factors leading to this reduction and rebound in prescribing rates.

Barriers to Implementing Registered Nurse-Driven Clinical Decision Support for Antibiotic Stewardship: Retrospective Case Study.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of antibiotic prescriptions for upper respiratory infections (URIs) are inappropriate. Clinical decision support (CDS) systems to mitigate unnecessary antibiotic prescriptions have been implemented into electronic health records, but their use by providers has been limited. OBJECTIVE: As a delegation protocol, we adapted a validated electronic health record-integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) CDS-based intervention for registered nurses (RNs), consisting of triage to identify patients with low-acuity URI followed by CDS-guided RN visits. It was implemented in February 2022 as a randomized controlled stepped-wedge trial in 43 primary and urgent care practices within 4 academic health systems in New York, Wisconsin, and Utah. While issues were pragmatically addressed as they arose, a systematic assessment of the barriers to implementation is needed to better understand and address these barriers. METHODS: We performed a retrospective case study, collecting quantitative and qualitative data regarding clinical workflows and triage-template use from expert interviews, study surveys, routine check-ins with practice personnel, and chart reviews over the first year of implementation of the iCPR intervention. Guided by the updated CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research), we characterized the initial barriers to implementing a URI iCPR intervention for RNs in ambulatory care. CFIR constructs were coded as missing, neutral, weak, or strong implementation factors. RESULTS: Barriers were identified within all implementation domains. The strongest barriers were found in the outer setting, with those factors trickling down to impact the inner setting. Local conditions driven by COVID-19 served as one of the strongest barriers, impacting attitudes among practice staff and ultimately contributing to a work infrastructure characterized by staff changes, RN shortages and turnover, and competing responsibilities. Policies and laws regarding scope of practice of RNs varied by state and institutional application of those laws, with some allowing more clinical autonomy for RNs. This necessitated different study procedures at each study site to meet practice requirements, increasing innovation complexity. Similarly, institutional policies led to varying levels of compatibility with existing triage, rooming, and documentation workflows. These workflow conflicts were compounded by limited available resources, as well as an implementation climate of optional participation, few participation incentives, and thus low relative priority compared to other clinical duties. CONCLUSIONS: Both between and within health care systems, significant variability existed in workflows for patient intake and triage. Even in a relatively straightforward clinical workflow, workflow and cultural differences appreciably impacted intervention adoption. Takeaways from this study can be applied to other RN delegation protocol implementations of new and innovative CDS tools within existing workflows to support integration and improve uptake. When implementing a system-wide clinical care intervention, considerations must be made for variability in culture and workflows at the state, health system, practice, and individual levels. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04255303; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303.

Feasibility Study of a Low-Carbohydrate/Time-Restricted Eating Protocol for Insulin-Using Type 2 Diabetic Patients.

INTRODUCTION: Low-carbohydrate diets and time-restricted eating are methods to improve hemoglobin A1C in patients with type 2 diabetes. However, insulin-using patients are often counseled against these practices due to hypoglycemia concerns. This observational study evaluated a protocol utilizing both methods coupled with proactive insulin titration. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and feasibility of a timed eating protocol for insulin-using patients and to assess its impact on outcomes, including insulin use and hemoglobin A1C. METHODS: Participants included insulin-using adults ages 49 to 77 years with type 2 diabetes. They were counseled to eat 2 meals per day in a 6- to 8-hour window of their choosing, with a goal intake of ≤ 30 grams of carbohydrates per day. Glucose was closely monitored, and insulin was adjusted per study protocol. Primary outcomes included hypoglycemic events and compliance with timed eating. Insulin use, hemoglobin A1C, body mass index, blood pressure, and quality of life also were measured. RESULTS: Nineteen of the 20 participants completed the 6-month study. No hypoglycemic events requiring urgent medical care occurred. Symptomatic episodes with glucose between 47 and 80 mg/dl were reported by 37% (7/19) of participants. Average daily insulin use decreased by 62.2 U (P < 0.001) and insulin was discontinued for 14 participants. Average hemoglobin A1C remained unchanged. Average body mass index decreased by 4.0 (P = 0.01), systolic blood pressure decreased by 9.9 mm Hg (P = 0.02), and diabetes-related quality-of-life metrics improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that a time-restricted eating protocol is feasible and safe for insulin-using patients with type 2 diabetes when paired with a proactive insulin titration.

Reducing prescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections using a frontline nurse-led EHR-Integrated clinical decision support tool: protocol for a stepped wedge randomized control trial.

BACKGROUND: Overprescribing of antibiotics for acute respiratory infections (ARIs) remains a major issue in outpatient settings. Use of clinical prediction rules (CPRs) can reduce inappropriate antibiotic prescribing but they remain underutilized by physicians and advanced practice providers. A registered nurse (RN)-led model of an electronic health record-integrated CPR (iCPR) for low-acuity ARIs may be an effective alternative to address the barriers to a physician-driven model. METHODS: Following qualitative usability testing, we will conduct a stepped-wedge practice-level cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) examining the effect of iCPR-guided RN care for low acuity patients with ARI. The primary hypothesis to be tested is: Implementation of RN-led iCPR tools will reduce antibiotic prescribing across diverse primary care settings. Specifically, this study aims to: (1) determine the impact of iCPRs on rapid strep test and chest x-ray ordering and antibiotic prescribing rates when used by RNs; (2) examine resource use patterns and cost-effectiveness of RN visits across diverse clinical settings; (3) determine the impact of iCPR-guided care on patient satisfaction; and (4) ascertain the effect of the intervention on RN and physician burnout. DISCUSSION: This study represents an innovative approach to using an iCPR model led by RNs and specifically designed to address inappropriate antibiotic prescribing. This study has the potential to provide guidance on the effectiveness of delegating care of low-acuity patients with ARIs to RNs to increase use of iCPRs and reduce antibiotic overprescribing for ARIs in outpatient settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04255303, Registered February 5 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04255303 .

Disseminating child abuse clinical decision support among commercial electronic health records: Effects on clinical practice.

Objectives: The use of electronic health record (EHR)-embedded child abuse clinical decision support (CA-CDS) may help decrease morbidity from child maltreatment. We previously reported on the development of CA-CDS in Epic and Allscripts. The objective of this study was to implement CA-CDS into Epic and Allscripts and determine its effects on identification, evaluation, and reporting of suspected child maltreatment. Materials and Methods: After a preimplementation period, CA-CDS was implemented at University of Wisconsin (Epic) and Northwell Health (Allscripts). Providers were surveyed before the go-live and 4 months later. Outcomes included the proportion of children who triggered the CA-CDS system, had a positive Child Abuse Screen (CAS) and/or were reported to Child Protective Services (CPS). Results: At University of Wisconsin (UW), 3.5% of children in the implementation period triggered the system. The CAS was positive in 1.8% of children. The proportion of children reported to CPS increased from 0.6% to 0.9%. There was rapid uptake of the abuse order set.At Northwell Health (NW), 1.9% of children in the implementation period triggered the system. The CAS was positive in 1% of children. The child abuse order set was rarely used. Preimplementation, providers at both sites were similar in desire to have CA-CDS system and perception of CDS in general. After implementation, UW providers had a positive perception of the CA-CDS system, while NW providers had a negative perception. Discussion: CA-CDS was able to be implemented in 2 different EHRs with differing effects on clinical care and provider feedback. At UW, the site with higher uptake of the CA-CDS system, the proportion of children who triggered the system and the rate of positive CAS was similar to previous studies and there was an increase in the proportion of cases of suspected abuse identified as measured by reports to CPS. Our data demonstrate how local environment, end-users' opinions, and limitations in the EHR platform can impact the success of implementation. Conclusions: When disseminating CA-CDS into different hospital systems and different EHRs, it is critical to recognize how limitations in the functionality of the EHR can impact the success of implementation. The importance of collecting, interpreting, and responding to provider feedback is of critical importance particularly with CDS related to child maltreatment.

Clinician Attitudes and Beliefs Associated with More Aggressive Diagnostic Testing.

BACKGROUND: Variation in clinicians' diagnostic test utilization is incompletely explained by demographics and likely relates to cognitive characteristics. We explored clinician factors associated with diagnostic test utilization. METHODS: We used a self-administered survey of attitudes, cognitive characteristics, and reported likelihood of test ordering in common scenarios; frequency of lipid and liver testing in patients on statin therapy. Participants were 552 primary care physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants from practices in 8 US states across 3 regions, from June 1, 2018 to November 26, 2019. We measured Testing Likelihood Score: the mean of 4 responses to testing frequency and self-reported testing frequency in patients on statins. RESULTS: Respondents were 52.4% residents, 36.6% attendings, and 11.0% nurse practitioners/physician assistants; most were white (53.6%) or Asian (25.5%). Median age was 32 years; 53.1% were female. Participants reported ordering tests for a median of 20% (stress tests) to 90% (mammograms) of patients; Testing Likelihood Scores varied widely (median 54%, interquartile range 43%-69%). Higher scores were associated with geography, training type, low numeracy, high malpractice fear, high medical maximizer score, high stress from uncertainty, high concern about bad outcomes, and low acknowledgment of medical uncertainty. More frequent testing of lipids and liver tests was associated with low numeracy, high medical maximizer score, high malpractice fear, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. CONCLUSIONS: Clinician variation in testing was common, with more aggressive testing consistently associated with low numeracy, being a medical maximizer, and low acknowledgment of uncertainty. Efforts to reduce undue variations in testing should consider clinician cognitive drivers.

Clinician Conceptualization of the Benefits of Treatments for Individual Patients.

Importance: Knowing the expected effect of treatment on an individual patient is essential for patient care. Objective: To explore clinicians' conceptualizations of the chance that treatments will decrease the risk of disease outcomes. Design, Setting, and Participants: This survey study of attending and resident physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants was conducted in outpatient clinical settings in 8 US states from June 2018 to November 2019. The survey was an in-person, paper, 26-item survey in which clinicians were asked to estimate the probability of adverse disease outcomes and expected effects of therapies for diseases common in primary care. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient. Results: Of 723 clinicians, 585 (81%) responded, and 542 completed all the questions necessary for analysis, with a median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of 32 (29-44) years, 287 (53%) women, and 294 (54%) White participants. Clinicians consistently overestimated the chance that treatments would benefit an individual patient. The median (IQR) estimated chance that warfarin would prevent a stroke in the next year was 50% (5%-80%) compared with scientific evidence, which indicates an absolute risk reduction (ARR) of 0.2% to 1.0% based on a relative risk reduction (RRR) of 39% to 50%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that antihypertensive therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event within 5 years was 30% (10%-70%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0% to 3% based on an RRR of 0% to 28%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that bisphosphonate therapy would prevent a hip fracture in the next 5 years was 40% (10%-60%) vs evidence of ARR of 0.1% to 0.4% based on an RRR of 20% to 40%. The median (IQR) estimated chance that moderate-intensity statin therapy would prevent a cardiovascular event in the next 5 years was 20% (IQR 5%-50%) vs evidence of an ARR of 0.3% to 2% based on an RRR of 19% to 33%. Estimates of the chance that a treatment would prevent an adverse outcome exceeded estimates of the absolute chance of that outcome for 60% to 70% of clinicians. Clinicians whose overestimations were greater were more likely to report using that treatment for patients in their practice (eg, use of warfarin: correlation coefficient, 0.46; 95% CI, 0.40-0.53; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study, clinicians significantly overestimated the benefits of treatment to individual patients. Clinicians with greater overestimates were more likely to report using treatments in actual patients.

Accuracy of Practitioner Estimates of Probability of Diagnosis Before and After Testing.

Importance: Accurate diagnosis is essential to proper patient care. Objective: To explore practitioner understanding of diagnostic reasoning. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this survey study, 723 practitioners at outpatient clinics in 8 US states were asked to estimate the probability of disease for 4 scenarios common in primary care (pneumonia, cardiac ischemia, breast cancer screening, and urinary tract infection) and the association of positive and negative test results with disease probability from June 1, 2018, to November 26, 2019. Of these practitioners, 585 responded to the survey, and 553 answered all of the questions. An expert panel developed the survey and determined correct responses based on literature review. Results: A total of 553 (290 resident physicians, 202 attending physicians, and 61 nurse practitioners and physician assistants) of 723 practitioners (76.5%) fully completed the survey (median age, 32 years; interquartile range, 29-44 years; 293 female [53.0%]; 296 [53.5%] White). Pretest probability was overestimated in all scenarios. Probabilities of disease after positive results were overestimated as follows: pneumonia after positive radiology results, 95% (evidence range, 46%-65%; comparison P < .001); breast cancer after positive mammography results, 50% (evidence range, 3%-9%; P < .001); cardiac ischemia after positive stress test result, 70% (evidence range, 2%-11%; P < .001); and urinary tract infection after positive urine culture result, 80% (evidence range, 0%-8.3%; P < .001). Overestimates of probability of disease with negative results were also observed as follows: pneumonia after negative radiography results, 50% (evidence range, 10%-19%; P < .001); breast cancer after negative mammography results, 5% (evidence range, <0.05%; P < .001); cardiac ischemia after negative stress test result, 5% (evidence range, 0.43%-2.5%; P < .001); and urinary tract infection after negative urine culture result, 5% (evidence range, 0%-0.11%; P < .001). Probability adjustments in response to test results varied from accurate to overestimates of risk by type of test (imputed median positive and negative likelihood ratios [LRs] for practitioners for chest radiography for pneumonia: positive LR, 4.8; evidence, 2.6; negative LR, 0.3; evidence, 0.3; mammography for breast cancer: positive LR, 44.3; evidence range, 13.0-33.0; negative LR, 1.0; evidence range, 0.05-0.24; exercise stress test for cardiac ischemia: positive LR, 21.0; evidence range, 2.0-2.7; negative LR, 0.6; evidence range, 0.5-0.6; urine culture for urinary tract infection: positive LR, 9.0; evidence, 9.0; negative LR, 0.1; evidence, 0.1). Conclusions and Relevance: This survey study suggests that for common diseases and tests, practitioners overestimate the probability of disease before and after testing. Pretest probability was overestimated in all scenarios, whereas adjustment in probability after a positive or negative result varied by test. Widespread overestimates of the probability of disease likely contribute to overdiagnosis and overuse.

Dissemination of child abuse clinical decision support: Moving beyond a single electronic health record.

BACKGROUND: Child maltreatment is a leading cause of pediatric morbidity and mortality. We previously reported on development and implementation of a child abuse clinical decision support system (CA-CDSS) in the Cerner electronic health record (EHR). Our objective was to develop a CA-CDSS in two different EHRs. METHODS: Using the CA-CDSS in Cerner as a template, CA-CDSSs were developed for use in four hospitals in the Northwell Health system who use Allscripts and two hospitals in the University of Wisconsin health system who use Epic. Each system had a combination of triggers, alerts and child abuse-specific order sets. Usability evaluation was done prior to launch of the CA-CDSS. RESULTS: Over an 18-month period, a CA-CDSS was embedded into Epic and Allscripts at two hospital systems. The CA-CDSSs vary significantly from each other in terms of the type of triggers which were able to be used, the type of alert, the ability of the alert to link directly to child abuse-specific order sets and the order sets themselves. CONCLUSIONS: Dissemination of CA-CDSS from one EHR into the EHR in other health care systems is possible but time-consuming and needs to be adapted to the strengths and limitations of the specific EHR. Site-specific usability evaluation, buy-in of multiple stakeholder groups and significant information technology support are needed. These barriers limit scalability and widespread dissemination of CA-CDSS.

The Art of Constructing Black Phosphorus Nanosheet Based Heterostructures: From 2D to 3D.

Assembling different kinds of 2D nanosheets into heterostructures presents a promising way of designing novel artificial materials with new and improved functionalities by combining the unique properties of each component. In the past few years, black phosphorus nanosheets (BPNSs) have been recognized as a highly feasible 2D material with outstanding electronic properties, a tunable bandgap, and strong in-plane anisotropy, highlighting their suitability as a material for constructing heterostructures. In this study, recent progress in the construction of BPNS-based heterostructures ranging from 2D hybrid structures to 3D networks is discussed, emphasizing the different types of interactions (covalent or noncovalent) between individual layers. The preparation methods, optical and electronic properties, and various applications of these heterostructures-including electronic and optoelectronic devices, energy storage devices, photocatalysis and electrocatalysis, and biological applications-are discussed. Finally, critical challenges and prospective research aspects in BPNS-based heterostructures are also highlighted.

Microscopic Picture of Electron-Phonon Interaction in Two-Dimensional Halide Perovskites.

Perovskites have attracted much attention due to their remarkable optical properties. While it is well established that excitons dominate their optical response, the impact of higher excitonic states and formation of phonon sidebands in optical spectra still need to be better understood. Here, we perform a theoretical study of excitonic properties of monolayered hybrid organic perovskites-supported by temperature-dependent photoluminescence measurements. Solving the Wannier equation, we obtain microscopic access to the Rydberg-like series of excitonic states including their wave functions and binding energies. Exploiting the generalized Elliot formula, we calculate the photoluminescence spectra demonstrating a pronounced contribution of a phonon sideband for temperatures up to 50 K, in agreement with experimental measurements. Finally, we predict temperature-dependent line widths of the three energetically lowest excitonic transitions and identify the underlying phonon-driven scattering processes.

Impact of Clinical Decision Support on Antibiotic Prescribing for Acute Respiratory Infections: a Cluster Randomized Implementation Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinical decision support (CDS) is a promising tool for reducing antibiotic prescribing for acute respiratory infections (ARIs). OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of previously effective CDS on antibiotic-prescribing rates for ARIs when adapted and implemented in diverse primary care settings. DESIGN: Cluster randomized clinical trial (RCT) implementing a CDS tool designed to guide evidence-based evaluation and treatment of streptococcal pharyngitis and pneumonia. SETTING: Two large academic health system primary care networks with a mix of providers. PARTICIPANTS: All primary care practices within each health system were invited. All providers within participating clinic were considered a participant. Practices were randomized selection to a control or intervention group. INTERVENTIONS: Intervention practice providers had access to an integrated clinical prediction rule (iCPR) system designed to determine the risk of bacterial infection from reason for visit of sore throat, cough, or upper respiratory infection and guide evidence-based evaluation and treatment. MAIN OUTCOME(S): Change in overall antibiotic prescription rates. MEASURE(S): Frequency, rates, and type of antibiotics prescribed in intervention and controls groups. RESULTS: 33 primary care practices participated with 541 providers and 100,573 patient visits. Intervention providers completed the tool in 6.9% of eligible visits. Antibiotics were prescribed in 35% and 36% of intervention and control visits, respectively, showing no statistically significant difference. There were also no differences in rates of orders for rapid streptococcal tests (RR, 0.94; P = 0.11) or chest X-rays (RR, 1.01; P = 0.999) between groups. CONCLUSIONS: The iCPR tool was not effective in reducing antibiotic prescription rates for upper respiratory infections in diverse primary care settings. This has implications for the generalizability of CDS tools as they are adapted to heterogeneous clinical contexts. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02534987). Registered August 26, 2015 at https://clinicaltrials.gov.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis).

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It focuses on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians via phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients-patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function-are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include one or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome. (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation, about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy, was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

Hypertension and Epistaxis: Why Is There Limited Guidance in the Nosebleed Clinical Practice Guidelines?

Hypertension has long been thought to influence the risk and severity of epistaxis. However, evaluation of the relevant literature reveals articles with methodologic concerns or limited quality. In many instances, these studies are not adequately controlled, and lack of multivariate analyses calls into question any noted association between epistaxis and hypertension. The goal of this commentary is to explain why there is limited guidance about the management of hypertension and the possible association with nosebleed in the 2020 American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation clinical practice guideline for nosebleeds. Background on the literature that describes the association between hypertension and nosebleeds is provided.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Nosebleed (Epistaxis) Executive Summary.

OBJECTIVE: Nosebleed, also known as epistaxis, is a common problem that occurs at some point in at least 60% of people in the United States. While the great majority of nosebleeds are limited in severity and duration, about 6% of people who experience nosebleeds will seek medical attention. For the purposes of this guideline, we define the target patient with a nosebleed as a patient with bleeding from the nostril, nasal cavity, or nasopharynx that is sufficient to warrant medical advice or care. This includes bleeding that is severe, persistent, and/or recurrent, as well as bleeding that impacts a patient's quality of life. Interventions for nosebleeds range from self-treatment and home remedies to more intensive procedural interventions in medical offices, emergency departments, hospitals, and operating rooms. Epistaxis has been estimated to account for 0.5% of all emergency department visits and up to one-third of all otolaryngology-related emergency department encounters. Inpatient hospitalization for aggressive treatment of severe nosebleeds has been reported in 0.2% of patients with nosebleeds. PURPOSE: The primary purpose of this multidisciplinary guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities in the management of nosebleeds and to create clear and actionable recommendations to implement these opportunities in clinical practice. Specific goals of this guideline are to promote best practices, reduce unjustified variations in care of patients with nosebleeds, improve health outcomes, and minimize the potential harms of nosebleeds or interventions to treat nosebleeds. The target patient for the guideline is any individual aged ≥3 years with a nosebleed or history of nosebleed who needs medical treatment or seeks medical advice. The target audience of this guideline is clinicians who evaluate and treat patients with nosebleed. This includes primary care providers such as family medicine physicians, internists, pediatricians, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners. It also includes specialists such as emergency medicine providers, otolaryngologists, interventional radiologists/neuroradiologists and neurointerventionalists, hematologists, and cardiologists. The setting for this guideline includes any site of evaluation and treatment for a patient with nosebleed, including ambulatory medical sites, the emergency department, the inpatient hospital, and even remote outpatient encounters with phone calls and telemedicine. Outcomes to be considered for patients with nosebleed include control of acute bleeding, prevention of recurrent episodes of nasal bleeding, complications of treatment modalities, and accuracy of diagnostic measures. This guideline addresses the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of nosebleed. It will focus on nosebleeds that commonly present to clinicians with phone calls, office visits, and emergency room encounters. This guideline discusses first-line treatments such as nasal compression, application of vasoconstrictors, nasal packing, and nasal cautery. It also addresses more complex epistaxis management, which includes the use of endoscopic arterial ligation and interventional radiology procedures. Management options for 2 special groups of patients, patients with hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT) and patients taking medications that inhibit coagulation and/or platelet function, are included in this guideline. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the working group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide for managing patients with nosebleed. In this context, the purpose is to define useful actions for clinicians, generalists, and specialists from a variety of disciplines to improve quality of care. Conversely, the statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based upon their experience and assessment of individual patients. ACTION STATEMENTS: The guideline development group made recommendations for the following key action statements: (1) At the time of initial contact, the clinician should distinguish the nosebleed patient who requires prompt management from the patient who does not. (2) The clinician should treat active bleeding for patients in need of prompt management with firm sustained compression to the lower third of the nose, with or without the assistance of the patient or caregiver, for 5 minutes or longer. (3a) For patients in whom bleeding precludes identification of a bleeding site despite nasal compression, the clinician should treat ongoing active bleeding with nasal packing. (3b) The clinician should use resorbable packing for patients with a suspected bleeding disorder or for patients who are using anticoagulation or antiplatelet medications. (4) The clinician should educate the patient who undergoes nasal packing about the type of packing placed, timing of and plan for removal of packing (if not resorbable), postprocedure care, and any signs or symptoms that would warrant prompt reassessment. (5) The clinician should document factors that increase the frequency or severity of bleeding for any patient with a nosebleed, including personal or family history of bleeding disorders, use of anticoagulant or antiplatelet medications, or intranasal drug use. (6) The clinician should perform anterior rhinoscopy to identify a source of bleeding after removal of any blood clot (if present) for patients with nosebleeds. (7a) The clinician should perform, or should refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to identify the site of bleeding and guide further management in patients with recurrent nasal bleeding, despite prior treatment with packing or cautery, or with recurrent unilateral nasal bleeding. (8) The clinician should treat patients with an identified site of bleeding with an appropriate intervention, which may include 1 or more of the following: topical vasoconstrictors, nasal cautery, and moisturizing or lubricating agents. (9) When nasal cautery is chosen for treatment, the clinician should anesthetize the bleeding site and restrict application of cautery only to the active or suspected site(s) of bleeding. (10) The clinician should evaluate, or refer to a clinician who can evaluate, candidacy for surgical arterial ligation or endovascular embolization for patients with persistent or recurrent bleeding not controlled by packing or nasal cauterization. (11) In the absence of life-threatening bleeding, the clinician should initiate first-line treatments prior to transfusion, reversal of anticoagulation, or withdrawal of anticoagulation/antiplatelet medications for patients using these medications. (12) The clinician should assess, or refer to a specialist who can assess, the presence of nasal telangiectasias and/or oral mucosal telangiectasias in patients who have a history of recurrent bilateral nosebleeds or a family history of recurrent nosebleeds to diagnose hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia syndrome (HHT). (13) The clinician should educate patients with nosebleeds and their caregivers about preventive measures for nosebleeds, home treatment for nosebleeds, and indications to seek additional medical care. (14) The clinician or designee should document the outcome of intervention within 30 days or document transition of care in patients who had a nosebleed treated with nonresorbable packing, surgery, or arterial ligation/embolization. The policy level for the following recommendation about examination of the nasal cavity and nasopharynx using nasal endoscopy was an option: (7b) The clinician may perform, or may refer to a clinician who can perform, nasal endoscopy to examine the nasal cavity and nasopharynx in patients with epistaxis that is difficult to control or when there is concern for unrecognized pathology contributing to epistaxis.

Using normalisation process theory to understand workflow implications of decision support implementation across diverse primary care settings.

BACKGROUND: Effective implementation of technologies into clinical workflow is hampered by lack of integration into daily activities. Normalisation process theory (NPT) can be used to describe the kinds of 'work' necessary to implement and embed complex new practices. We determined the suitability of NPT to assess the facilitators, barriers and 'work' of implementation of two clinical decision support (CDS) tools across diverse care settings. METHODS: We conducted baseline and 6-month follow-up quantitative surveys of clinic leadership at two academic institutions' primary care clinics randomised to the intervention arm of a larger study. The survey was adapted from the NPT toolkit, analysing four implementation domains: sense-making, participation, action, monitoring. Domains were summarised among completed responses (n=60) and examined by role, institution, and time. RESULTS: The median score for each NPT domain was the same across roles and institutions at baseline, and decreased at 6 months. At 6 months, clinic managers' participation domain (p=0.003), and all domains for medical directors (p<0.003) declined. At 6 months, the action domain decreased among Utah respondents (p=0.03), and all domains decreased among Wisconsin respondents (p≤0.008). CONCLUSIONS: This study employed NPT to longitudinally assess the implementation barriers of new CDS. The consistency of results across participant roles suggests similarities in the work each role took on during implementation. The decline in engagement over time suggests the need for more frequent contact to maintain momentum. Using NPT to evaluate this implementation provides insight into domains which can be addressed with participants to improve success of new electronic health record technologies. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02534987.

Device and non-device-guided slow breathing to reduce blood pressure: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Interest is increasing in nonpharmacological interventions to treat blood pressure in hypertensive and prehypertensive patients at low cardiac risk. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials assesses the impact of device-guided and non-device-guided (pranayama) slow breathing on blood pressure reduction in these patient populations. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, BIOSIS (Biological Abstracts) Citation Index and Alt HealthWatch for studies meeting these inclusion criteria: randomized controlled trial or first phase of a randomized cross-over study; subjects with hypertension, prehypertension or on antihypertensive medication; intervention consisting of slow breathing at ≤10 breaths/minute for ≥5 min on ≥3 days/week; total intervention duration of ≥4 weeks; follow-up for ≥4 weeks; and a control group. Data were extracted by two authors independently, the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool assessed bias risk, and data were pooled using the DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. Main outcomes included changes in systolic (SBP) and/or diastolic blood pressure (DBP), heart rate (HR), and/or decreased antihypertensive medication. RESULTS: Of 103 citations eligible for full-text review, 17 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Overall, slow breathing decreased SBP by -5.62 mmHg [-7.86, -3.38] and DBP by -2.97 mmHg [-4.28, -1.66]. Heterogeneity was high for all analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Slow breathing showed a modest reduction in blood pressure. It may be a reasonable first treatment for low-risk hypertensive and prehypertensive patients who are reluctant to start medication.

Live Usability Testing of Two Complex Clinical Decision Support Tools: Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Potential of the electronic health records (EHR) and clinical decision support (CDS) systems to improve the practice of medicine has been tempered by poor design and the resulting burden they place on providers. CDS is rarely tested in the real clinical environment. As a result, many tools are hard to use, placing strain on providers and resulting in low adoption rates. The existing CDS usability literature relies primarily on expert opinion and provider feedback via survey. This is the first study to evaluate CDS usability and the provider-computer-patient interaction with complex CDS in the real clinical environment. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to further understand the barriers and facilitators of meaningful CDS usage within a real clinical context. METHODS: This qualitative observational study was conducted with 3 primary care providers during 6 patient care sessions. In patients with the chief complaint of sore throat, a CDS tool built with the Centor Score was used to stratify the risk of group A Streptococcus pharyngitis. In patients with a chief complaint of cough or upper respiratory tract infection, a CDS tool built with the Heckerling Rule was used to stratify the risk of pneumonia. During usability testing, all human-computer interactions, including audio and continuous screen capture, were recorded using the Camtasia software. Participants' comments and interactions with the tool during clinical sessions and participant comments during a postsession brief interview were placed into coding categories and analyzed for generalizable themes. RESULTS: In the 6 encounters observed, primary care providers toggled between addressing either the computer or the patient during the visit. Minimal time was spent listening to the patient without engaging the EHR. Participants mostly used the CDS tool with the patient, asking questions to populate the calculator and discussing the results of the risk assessment; they reported the ability to do this as the major benefit of the tool. All providers were interrupted during their use of the CDS tool by the need to refer to other sections of the chart. In half of the visits, patients' clinical symptoms challenged the applicability of the tool to calculate the risk of bacterial infection. Primary care providers rarely used the incorporated incentives for CDS usage, including progress notes and patient instructions. CONCLUSIONS: Live usability testing of these CDS tools generated insights about their role in the patient-provider interaction. CDS may contribute to the interaction by being simultaneously viewed by the provider and patient. CDS can improve usability and lessen the strain it places on providers by being short, flexible, and customizable to unique provider workflow. A useful component of CDS is being as widely applicable as possible and ensuring that its functions represent the fastest way to perform a particular task.

Adaptive design of a clinical decision support tool: What the impact on utilization rates means for future CDS research.

OBJECTIVE: We employed an agile, user-centered approach to the design of a clinical decision support tool in our prior integrated clinical prediction rule study, which achieved high adoption rates. To understand if applying this user-centered process to adapt clinical decision support tools is effective in improving the use of clinical prediction rules, we examined utilization rates of a clinical decision support tool adapted from the original integrated clinical prediction rule study tool to determine if applying this user-centered process to design yields enhanced utilization rates similar to the integrated clinical prediction rule study.MATERIALS & METHODS: We conducted pre-deployment usability testing and semi-structured group interviews at 6 months post-deployment with 75 providers at 14 intervention clinics across the two sites to collect user feedback. Qualitative data analysis is bifurcated into immediate and delayed stages; we reported on immediate-stage findings from real-time field notes used to generate a set of rapid, pragmatic recommendations for iterative refinement. Monthly utilization rates were calculated and examined over 12 months. RESULTS: We hypothesized a well-validated, user-centered clinical decision support tool would lead to relatively high adoption rates. Then 6 months post-deployment, integrated clinical prediction rule study tool utilization rates were substantially lower than anticipated based on the original integrated clinical prediction rule study trial (68%) at 17% (Health System A) and 5% (Health System B). User feedback at 6 months resulted in recommendations for tool refinement, which were incorporated when possible into tool design; however, utilization rates at 12 months post-deployment remained low at 14% and 4% respectively. DISCUSSION: Although valuable, findings demonstrate the limitations of a user-centered approach given the complexity of clinical decision support. CONCLUSION: Strategies for addressing persistent external factors impacting clinical decision support adoption should be considered in addition to the user-centered design and implementation of clinical decision support.