Increasing Safe Outpatient Management of Emergency Department Patients With Pulmonary Embolism: A Controlled Pragmatic Trial.

Background: Many low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) are eligible for outpatient care but are hospitalized nonetheless. One impediment to home discharge is the difficulty of identifying which patients can safely forgo hospitalization. Objective: To evaluate the effect of an integrated electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate risk stratification and decision making at the site of care for patients with acute PE. Design: Controlled pragmatic trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03601676). Setting: All 21 community EDs of an integrated health care delivery system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California). Patients: Adult ED patients with acute PE. Intervention: Ten intervention sites selected by convenience received a multidimensional technology and education intervention at month 9 of a 16-month study period (January 2014 to April 2015); the remaining 11 sites served as concurrent controls. Measurements: The primary outcome was discharge to home from either the ED or a short-term (<24-hour) outpatient observation unit based in the ED. Adverse outcomes included return visits for PE-related symptoms within 5 days and recurrent venous thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality within 30 days. A difference-in-differences approach was used to compare pre-post changes at intervention versus control sites, with adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics. Results: Among 881 eligible patients diagnosed with PE at intervention sites and 822 at control sites, adjusted home discharge increased at intervention sites (17.4% pre- to 28.0% postintervention) without a concurrent increase at control sites (15.1% pre- and 14.5% postintervention). The difference-in-differences comparison was 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, 3.0 to 19.5 percentage points; P = 0.007). No increases were seen in 5-day return visits related to PE or in 30-day major adverse outcomes associated with CDSS implementation. Limitation: Lack of random allocation. Conclusion: Implementation and structured promotion of a CDSS to aid physicians in site-of-care decision making for ED patients with acute PE safely increased outpatient management. Primary Funding Source: Garfield Memorial National Research Fund and The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Physician Researcher Programs.

Emergency Department Patient Satisfaction with Treatment of Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism.

INTRODUCTION: Many emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who meet low-risk criteria may be eligible for a short length of stay (LOS) (<24 hours), with expedited discharge home either directly from the ED or after a brief observation or hospitalization. We describe the association between expedited discharge and site of discharge on care satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) among patients with low-risk PE (PE Severity Index [PESI] Classes I-III). METHODS: This phone survey was conducted from September 2014 through April 2015 as part of a retrospective cohort study across 21 community EDs in Northern California. We surveyed low-risk patients with acute PE, treated predominantly with enoxaparin bridging and warfarin. All eligible patients were called 2-8 weeks after their index ED visit. PE-specific, patient-satisfaction questions addressed overall care, discharge instruction clarity, and LOS. We scored physical and mental QOL using a modified version of the validated Short Form Health Survey. Satisfaction and QOL were compared by LOS. For those with expedited discharge, we compared responses by site of discharge: ED vs. hospital, which included ED-based observation units. We used chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests as indicated. RESULTS: Survey response rate was 82.3% (424 of 515 eligible patients). Median age of respondents was 64 years; 47.4% were male. Of the 145 patients (34.2%) with a LOS<24 hours, 65 (44.8%) were discharged home from the ED. Of all patients, 89.6% were satisfied with their overall care and 94.1% found instructions clear. Sixty-six percent were satisfied with their LOS, whereas 17.5% would have preferred a shorter LOS and 16.5% a longer LOS. There were no significant differences in satisfaction between patients with LOS<24 hours vs. ≥24 hours (p>0.13 for all). Physical QOL scores were significantly higher for expedited-discharge patients (p=0.01). Patients with expedited discharge home from the ED vs. the hospital had no significant difference in satisfaction (p>0.20 for all) or QOL (p>0.19 for all). CONCLUSION: ED patients with low-risk PE reported high satisfaction with their care in follow-up surveys. Expedited discharge (<24 hours) and site of discharge were not associated with differences in patient satisfaction.

Risk stratifying emergency department patients with acute pulmonary embolism: Does the simplified Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index perform as well as the original?

INTRODUCTION: The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) is a validated prognostic score to estimate the 30-day mortality of emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE). A simplified version (sPESI) was derived but has not been as well studied in the U.S. We sought to validate both indices in a community hospital setting in the U.S. and compare their performance in predicting 30-day all-cause mortality and classification of cases into low-risk and higher-risk categories. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included adults with acute objectively confirmed PE from 1/2013 to 4/2015 across 21 community EDs. We evaluated the misclassification rate of the sPESI compared with the PESI. We assessed accuracy of both indices with regard to 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Among 3006 cases of acute PE, the 30-day all-cause mortality rate was 4.4%. The sPESI performed as well as the PESI in identifying low-risk patients: both had similar sensitivities, negative predictive values, and negative likelihood ratios. The sPESI, however, classified a smaller proportion of patients as low risk than the PESI (27.5% vs. 41.0%), but with similar low-risk mortality rates (<1%). Compared with the PESI, the sPESI overclassified 443 low-risk patients (14.7%) as higher risk, yet their 30-day mortality was 0.7%. The sPESI underclassified 100 higher-risk patients (3.3%) as low risk who also had a low mortality rate (1.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Both indices identified patients with PE who were at low risk for 30-day mortality. The sPESI, however, misclassified a significant number of low-mortality patients as higher risk, which could lead to unnecessary hospitalizations.

Optimizing Clinical Decision Support in the Electronic Health Record. Clinical Characteristics Associated with the Use of a Decision Tool for Disposition of ED Patients with Pulmonary Embolism.

OBJECTIVE: Adoption of clinical decision support (CDS) tools by clinicians is often limited by workflow barriers. We sought to assess characteristics associated with clinician use of an electronic health record-embedded clinical decision support system (CDSS). METHODS: In a prospective study on emergency department (ED) activation of a CDSS tool across 14 hospitals between 9/1/14 to 4/30/15, the CDSS was deployed at 10 active sites with an on-site champion, education sessions, iterative feedback, and up to 3 gift cards/clinician as an incentive. The tool was also deployed at 4 passive sites that received only an introductory educational session. Activation of the CDSS - which calculated the Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) score and provided guidance - and associated clinical data were collected prospectively. We used multivariable logistic regression with random effects at provider/facility levels to assess the association between activation of the CDSS tool and characteristics at: 1) patient level (PESI score), 2) provider level (demographics and clinical load at time of activation opportunity), and 3) facility level (active vs. passive site, facility ED volume, and ED acuity at time of activation opportunity). RESULTS: Out of 662 eligible patient encounters, the CDSS was activated in 55%: active sites: 68% (346/512); passive sites 13% (20/150). In bivariate analysis, active sites had an increase in activation rates based on the number of prior gift cards the physician had received (96% if 3 prior cards versus 60% if 0, p<0.0001). At passive sites, physicians < age 40 had higher rates of activation (p=0.03). In multivariable analysis, active site status, low ED volume at the time of diagnosis and PESI scores I or II (compared to III or higher) were associated with higher likelihood of CDSS activation. CONCLUSIONS: Performing on-site tool promotion significantly increased odds of CDSS activation. Optimizing CDSS adoption requires active education.