Clinician challenges to evidence-based prescribing for heart failure and reduced ejection fraction: A qualitative evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Reasons for suboptimal prescribing for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) have been identified, but it is unclear if they remain relevant with recent advances in healthcare delivery and technologies. This study aimed to identify and understand current clinician-perceived challenges to prescribing guideline-directed HFrEF medications. METHODS: We conducted content analysis methodology, including interviews and member-checking focus groups with primary care and cardiology clinicians. Interview guides were informed by the Cabana Framework. RESULTS: We conducted interviews with 33 clinicians (13 cardiology specialists, 22 physicians) and member checking with 10 of these. We identified four levels of challenges from the clinician perspective. Clinician level challenges included misconceptions about guideline recommendations, clinician assumptions (e.g., drug cost or affordability), and clinical inertia. Patient-clinician level challenges included misalignment of priorities and insufficient communication. Clinician-clinician level challenges were primarily between generalists and specialists, including lack of role clarity, competing priorities of providing focused versus holistic care, and contrasting confidence regarding safety of newer drugs. Policy and system/organisation level challenges included insufficient access to timely/reliable patient data, and unintended care gaps for medications without financially incentivized metrics. CONCLUSION: This study presents current challenges faced by cardiology and primary care which can be used to strategically design interventions to improve guideline-directed care for HFrEF. The findings support the persistence of many challenges and also sheds light on new challenges. New challenges identified include conflicting perspectives between generalists and specialists, hesitancy to prescribe newer medications due to safety concerns, and unintended consequences related to value-based reimbursement metrics for select medications.

Comparative effectiveness of generic commercial versus locally customized clinical decision support tools to reduce prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for patients with heart failure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of 2 clinical decision support (CDS) tools to avoid prescription of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in patients with heart failure (HF): a "commercial" and a locally "customized" alert. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2 CDS tools implemented within a large integrated health system. The commercial CDS tool was designed according to third-party drug content and EHR vendor specifications. The customized CDS tool underwent a user-centered design process informed by implementation science principles, with input from a cross disciplinary team. The customized CDS tool replaced the commercial CDS tool. Data were collected from the electronic health record via analytic reports and manual chart review. The primary outcome was effectiveness, defined as whether the clinician changed their behavior and did not prescribe an NSAID. RESULTS: A random sample of 366 alerts (183 per CDS tool) was evaluated that represented 355 unique patients. The commercial CDS tool was effective for 7 of 172 (4%) patients, while the customized CDS tool was effective for 81 of 183 (44%) patients. After adjusting for age, chronic kidney disease, ejection fraction, NYHA class, concurrent prescription of an opioid or acetaminophen, visit type (inpatient or outpatient), and clinician specialty, the customized alerts were at 24.3 times greater odds of effectiveness compared to the commercial alerts (OR: 24.3 CI: 10.20-58.06). CONCLUSION: Investing additional resources to customize a CDS tool resulted in a CDS tool that was more effective at reducing the total number of NSAID orders placed for patients with HF compared to a commercially available CDS tool.

Comparison of Sequential Dalbavancin With Standard-of-Care Treatment for Staphylococcus aureus Bloodstream Infections.

Background: Dalbavancin (DAL) is a long-acting lipoglycopeptide with activity against Staphylococcus aureus, including methicillin-resistant S. aureus (MRSA). This study investigates DAL as sequential therapy in S. aureus bloodstream infections (BSIs). Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study from 2014 to 2021 comparing sequential DAL with standard-of-care therapy (SoC) for S. aureus BSI. The primary outcome was 90-day clinical failure (90-day all-cause mortality or 90-day recurrence). Secondary outcomes were incidence of acute kidney injury, creatinine phosphokinase elevations, catheter-related thrombosis, and hospital-acquired infections. Analyses were adjusted using inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW). Results: Overall, 225 patients (45 DAL, 180 SoC) were included. DAL patients had a higher incidence of community-acquired infection and persons who use drugs; SoC patients had more comorbidities and a longer duration of bacteremia. MRSA incidence was similar between the DAL and SoC groups. The median length of stay was 16 days among DAL recipients compared with 24 days among SoC recipients. Central catheter placement was 17.8% compared with 57.2% in the SoC group. Ninety-day clinical failure occurred in 13.3% and 18.3% of participants in the DAL and SOC groups, respectively. In IPTW-adjusted analysis, sequential DAL was not associated with 90-day clinical failure (adjusted odds ratio, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.333-2.32). Conclusions: This study provides preliminary evidence that select patients with S. aureus BSI treated with sequential DAL have similar clinical failure rates, with significant reductions in catheter placement and hospital length of stay compared with SoC. Further prospective evaluation is needed.