Epinephrine Auto-Injector Versus Drawn Up Epinephrine for Anaphylaxis Management: A Scoping Review.

OBJECTIVE: Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening event. Most clinical symptoms of anaphylaxis can be reversed by prompt intramuscular administration of epinephrine using an auto-injector or epinephrine drawn up in a syringe and delays and errors may be fatal. The aim of this scoping review is to identify and compare errors associated with use of epinephrine drawn up in a syringe versus epinephrine auto-injectors in order to assist hospitals as they choose which approach minimizes risk of adverse events for their patients. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched using terms agreed to a priori. STUDY SELECTION: We reviewed human and simulation studies reporting errors associated with the use of epinephrine in anaphylaxis. There were multiple screening stages with evolving feedback. DATA EXTRACTION: Each study was independently assessed by two reviewers for eligibility. Data were extracted using an instrument modeled from the Zaza et al instrument and grouped into themes. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three main themes were noted: 1) ergonomics, 2) dosing errors, and 3) errors due to route of administration. Significant knowledge gaps in the operation of epinephrine auto-injectors among healthcare providers, patients, and caregivers were identified. For epinephrine in a syringe, there were more frequent reports of incorrect dosing and erroneous IV administration with associated adverse cardiac events. For the epinephrine auto-injector, unintentional administration to the digit was an error reported on multiple occasions. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review highlights knowledge gaps and a diverse set of errors regardless of the approach to epinephrine preparation during management of anaphylaxis. There are more potentially life-threatening errors reported for epinephrine drawn up in a syringe than with the auto-injectors. The impact of these knowledge gaps and potentially fatal errors on patient outcomes, cost, and quality of care is worthy of further investigation.

Systematic literature review of domains assessed in psoriatic arthritis to inform the update of the psoriatic arthritis core domain set.

The objectives of this systematic literature review (SLR) were to identify domains and outcome measures used in psoriatic arthritis (PsA) studies in the past 5 years, and to compare the measurement of the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2006 PsA Core Domain Set in studies published in 2010-2015 vs those published in 2006-2010. We performed a systematic literature search in two databases, PubMed and Embase, to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in PsA. We also identified PsA longitudinal observational studies (LOS). Three patient research partners provided input into study conception, and data collection and interpretation. We identified 41 studies representing 22 unique RCTs, 27 LOS and 12 registries. Across all studies, we identified 24 domains and 169 outcome measures. In addition to the PsA Core Domain Set (6 domains), the following domains were also assessed in more than 30% of RCTs: acute phase reactants, dactylitis, enthesitis, fatigue and work productivity. We identified a range of 1-15 outcome measures per domain with a mean (SD) of 7 (4.7) per domain. The complete PsA Core Domain Set was assessed in 59% of RCTs in 2010-2015 compared to 23.5% RCTs in 2006-2010. There has been increased measurement of the PsA Core Domain Set in RCTs and LOS in the past 5 years. Numerous additional outcomes were also measured. The PsA Core Domain Set needs an update to standardise PsA outcome assessments. This SLR will inform the development of an updated PsA Core Domain Set with patient research partner input.

Quality Measurements in Radiology: A Systematic Review of the Literature and Survey of Radiology Benefit Management Groups.

PURPOSE: As the US health care system transitions toward value-based reimbursement, there is an increasing need for metrics to quantify health care quality. Within radiology, many quality metrics are in use, and still more have been proposed, but there have been limited attempts to systematically inventory these measures and classify them using a standard framework. The purpose of this study was to develop an exhaustive inventory of public and private sector imaging quality metrics classified according to the classic Donabedian framework (structure, process, and outcome). METHODS: A systematic review was performed in which eligibility criteria included published articles (from 2000 onward) from multiple databases. Studies were double-read, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. For the radiology benefit management group (RBM) survey, the six known companies nationally were surveyed. Outcome measures were organized on the basis of standard categories (structure, process, and outcome) and reported using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. RESULTS: The search strategy yielded 1,816 citations; review yielded 110 reports (29 included for final analysis). Three of six RBMs (50%) responded to the survey; the websites of the other RBMs were searched for additional metrics. Seventy-five unique metrics were reported: 35 structure (46%), 20 outcome (27%), and 20 process (27%) metrics. For RBMs, 35 metrics were reported: 27 structure (77%), 4 process (11%), and 4 outcome (11%) metrics. The most commonly cited structure, process, and outcome metrics included ACR accreditation (37%), ACR Appropriateness Criteria (85%), and peer review (95%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Imaging quality metrics are more likely to be structural (46%) than process (27%) or outcome (27%) based (P < .05). As national value-based reimbursement programs increasingly emphasize outcome-based metrics, radiologists must keep pace by developing the data infrastructure required to collect outcome-based quality metrics.