Barriers and Facilitators of High-Efficiency Clinical Pathway Implementation in Community Hospitals.

BACKGROUND: An intervention that involved simultaneously implementing clinical pathways for multiple conditions was tested at a tertiary children's hospital and it improved care quality. We are conducting a randomized trial to evaluate this multicondition pathway intervention in community hospitals. Our objectives in this qualitative study were to prospectively (1) identify implementation barriers and (2) map barriers to facilitators using an established implementation science framework. METHODS: We recruited participants via site leaders from hospitals enrolled in the trial. We designed an interview guide using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and conducted individual interviews. Analysis was done using constant comparative methods. Anticipated barriers were mapped to facilitators using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior Framework. RESULTS: Participants from 12 hospitals across the United States were interviewed (n = 21). Major themes regarding the multicondition pathway intervention included clinician perceptions, potential benefits, anticipated barriers/challenges, potential facilitators, and necessary resources. We mapped barriers to additional facilitators using the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behavior framework. To address limited time/bandwidth of clinicians, we will provide Maintenance of Certification credits. To address new staff and trainee turnover, we will provide easily accessible educational videos/resources. To address difficulties in changing practice across other hospital units, we will encourage emergency department engagement. To address parental concerns with deimplementation, we will provide guidance on parent counseling. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several potential barriers and facilitators for implementation of a multicondition clinical pathway intervention in community hospitals. We also illustrate a prospective process for identifying implementation facilitators.

The Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in Pediatrics: miniMAGIC.

OBJECTIVES: Vascular access device decision-making for pediatric patients remains a complex, highly variable process. To date, evidence-based criteria to inform these choices do not exist. The objective of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters in pediatrics (miniMAGIC) was to provide guidance on device selection, device characteristics, and insertion technique for clinicians, balancing and contextualizing evidence with current practice through a multidisciplinary panel of experts. METHODS: The RAND Corporation and University of California, Los Angeles Appropriateness Method was used to develop miniMAGIC, which included the following sequential phases: definition of scope and key terms, information synthesis and literature review, expert multidisciplinary panel selection and engagement, case scenario development, and appropriateness ratings by an expert panel via 2 rounds. RESULTS: The appropriateness of the selection, characteristics, and insertion technique of intravenous catheters commonly used in pediatric health care across age populations (neonates, infants, children, and adolescents), settings, diagnoses, clinical indications, insertion locations, and vessel visualization devices and techniques was defined. Core concepts including vessel preservation, insertion and postinsertion harm minimization (eg, infection, thrombosis), undisrupted treatment provision, and inclusion of patient preferences were emphasized. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we provide evidence-based criteria for intravenous catheter selection (from umbilical catheters to totally implanted venous devices) in pediatric patients across a range of clinical indications. miniMAGIC also highlights core vascular access practices in need of collaborative research and innovation.

A Prospective Randomized, Double-Blind, Two-Period Crossover Pharmacokinetic Trial Comparing Green Coffee Bean Extract-A Botanically Sourced Caffeine-With a Synthetic USP Control.

Coffee is a primary dietary source of the chlorogenic acids (CGAs) of phenolic compounds. Coffee contains caffeine and other phytonutrients, including CGAs. Caffeine on its own has been well characterized and descried pharmacokinetically in the literature, less so for CGAs. The purpose of this double-blind crossover study was to determine the comparative pharmacokinetics of CGAs with caffeine (natural extract) with synthetic caffeine (US Pharmacopeia [USP] standard). Sixteen healthy male subjects were randomly assigned to take 1 dose of product 1, 60 mg of botanically sourced caffeine from 480 mg of green coffee bean extract, or product 2, 60 mg of synthetic USP caffeine, with 5 days between. Blood analysis was done to determine the levels of CGA compounds, more specifically 3-, 4-, and 5-caffeoylquinic acid (CQA), and serum caffeine. The natural caffeine extract exhibited mean peak concentrations (Cmax ) of 3-CQA (11.4 ng/mL), 4-CQA (6.84 ng/mL), and 5-CQA (7.20 ng/mL). The mean systemic 4-hour exposure (AUC0-4 h ) was 3-CQA (27.3 ng·h/mL), 4-CQA (16.1 ng·h/mL), and 5-CQA (15.7 ng·h/mL). The median tmax was 3-CQA (1.00 hour), 4-CQA (1.00 hour), and 5-CQA (1.50 hours). The tmax of caffeine was 0.75 hours (natural extract) and 0.63 hours (synthetic caffeine). Cmax and AUC0-4 h of serum caffeine were statistically equivalent between products. The geometric least-squares mean ratios (GMRs) of Cmax and AUC0-4 h of caffeine were 97.77% (natural extract) and 98.33% (synthetic caffeine). It would appear that CGA compounds from the natural caffeine extract are bioavailable, and 3-CGA may be the compound most absorbed. In addition, caffeine sourced from natural extract versus synthetic were statistically similar for pharmacokinetic parameters. There were no adverse events or safety concerns.