Outcomes in patients treated with loop diuretics without a diagnosis of heart failure: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Loop diuretics are commonly prescribed in the community, not always to patients with a recorded diagnosis of heart failure (HF). The rate of HF events in patients prescribed loop diuretics without a diagnosis of HF is unknown. METHODS: This was a propensity-matched cohort study using data from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, Hospital Episode Statistics and Office of National Statistics in the UK. Patients prescribed a loop diuretic without a diagnosis of HF (loop diuretic group) between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 were compared with patients with HF (HF group)-analysis A, and patients with risk factors for HF (either ischaemic heart disease, or diabetes and hypertension-at-risk group)-analysis B. The primary endpoint was an HF event (a composite of presentation with HF symptoms, HF hospitalisation, HF diagnosis (analysis B only) and all-cause mortality). RESULTS: From a total population of 180 384 patients (78 968 in the loop diuretic group, 28 177 in the HF group and 73 239 in the at-risk group), there were 59 694 patients, 22 352 patients and 57 219 patients in the loop diuretic, HF and at-risk groups, respectively, after exclusion criteria were applied. After propensity matching for age, sex and comorbidities, patients in the loop diuretic group had a similar rate of HF events as those in the HF group (71.9% vs 72.1%; HR=0.92 (95% CI 0.90 to 0.94); p<0.001), and twice as those in the at-risk group (59.2% vs 35.7%; HR=2.04 (95% CI 2.00 to 2.08); p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients prescribed a loop diuretic without a recorded diagnosis of HF experience HF events at a rate comparable with that of patients with a recorded diagnosis of HF; many of these patients may have undiagnosed HF.

Are root cause analyses recommendations effective and sustainable? An observational study.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the strength of root cause analysis (RCA) recommendations and their perceived levels of effectiveness and sustainability. DESIGN: All RCAs related to sentinel events (SEs) undertaken between the years 2010 and 2015 in the public health system in Victoria, Australia were analysed. The type and strength of each recommendation in the RCA reports were coded by an expert patient safety classifier using the US Department of Veteran Affairs type and strength criteria. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Thirty-six public health services. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The proportion of RCA recommendations which were classified as 'strong' (more likely to be effective and sustainable), 'medium' (possibly effective and sustainable) or 'weak' (less likely to be effective and sustainable). RESULTS: There were 227 RCAs in the period of study. In these RCAs, 1137 recommendations were made. Of these 8% were 'strong', 44% 'medium' and 48% were 'weak'. In 31 RCAs, or nearly 15%, only weak recommendations were made. In 24 (11%) RCAs five or more weak recommendations were made. In 165 (72%) RCAs no strong recommendations were made. The most frequent recommendation types were reviewing or enhancing a policy/guideline/documentation, and training and education. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of recommendations arising from RCAs in Victoria are 'strong'. This suggests that insights from the majority of RCAs are not likely to inform practice or process improvements. Suggested improvements include more human factors expertise and independence in investigations, more extensive application of existing tools that assist teams to prioritize recommendations that are likely to be effective, and greater use of observational and simulation techniques to understand the underlying systems factors. Time spent in repeatedly investigating similar incidents may be better spent aggregating and thematically analysing existing sources of information about patient safety.