Enhancement of Preoperative Mental Health Assessment Through Clinical Nurse Specialist Project Leadership.

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVES: The aim of the project was to discern whether a collaborative, consultative-rich, clinical nurse specialist-led project could increase completion rates of a patient health questionnaire for depression and a generalized anxiety disorder questionnaire with appropriate referrals in adult patients in the ambulatory and hospital settings of a robust cardiovascular surgery practice before cardiovascular surgery. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The Define, Measure, Analyze, Improve, Control implementation methodology guided this quality improvement project. The workflow was analyzed in collaboration with stakeholders, and barriers to and facilitators of questionnaire completion were identified. Interpreter services partnerships were enhanced and used for patients with a preferred language other than English. Weekly data analysis assessed ongoing questionnaire completion rates. OUTCOME: Documented completion rates of questionnaires improved across ambulatory and hospital settings by 15%. Patients with a preferred language other than English had an 80-percentage-point increase in documented questionnaire completion. CONCLUSION: Clinical nurse specialists are poised to lead projects because of their use of the collaborative and consultative core competencies. A formal electronic health record report was established for monitoring outcomes. Embedding questionnaire administration within the standard workflow of ambulatory and hospital staff makes administering questionnaires preoperatively a sustainable practice in both settings.

Retrospective validation of acute heart failure risk stratification in the emergency department.

BACKGROUND: Heart Failure (HF) is a primary diagnosis for hospital admission from the Emergency Department (ED), although not all patients require hospitalization. The Emergency Heart Failure Mortality Risk Grade (EHMRG) estimates 7-day mortality in patients with acute HF in ED settings, but further validation is needed in the United States (US). OBJECTIVES: To validate EHMRG scores by risk-stratifying patients with acute HF in a large tertiary healthcare center in the US and analyze outcome measures to determine if EHMRG risk scores safely identify low-risk groups that may be discharged or managed in ED observation units (EDOUs). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of 304 patients with acute HF presenting to an ED at a large, tertiary healthcare center was completed. EHMRG scores were calculated to stratify patients according to published thresholds. Mortality and major adverse cardiac event (MACE) rates were analyzed. RESULTS: No deaths occurred in very low and low-risk EHMRG groups at 7 days post discharge. 30-day mortality was significantly less in the lower risk groups (3.1%) when compared to all other patients (11.1%). MACE rates at 30 days in the very low risk group (15%) were significantly less when compared to all other patients (31.3%). Hospitalizations occurred in 23.4% of patients in lower risk groups. CONCLUSIONS: ED risk stratification with EHMRG differentiates high-risk patients requiring hospitalization from lower risk patients who can be safely managed in alternative settings with good outcomes. Data supports improved pathways for patients with acute HF during a time of high hospital volumes.

A survey of clinician attitudes and self-reported practices regarding end-of-life care in heart failure.

BACKGROUND: As heart failure often follows an unpredictable clinical trajectory, there has been an impetus to promote iterative patient-provider discussions regarding prognosis and preferences for end-of-life care. AIM: To examine clinicians' practices, expectations, and personal level of confidence in discussing goals of care and providing end-of-life care to their patients with heart failure. DESIGN: Multi-site clinician survey. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota, USA) and its surrounding health system were asked to participate in an electronic survey in October 2013. Tertiary Care Cardiology, Community Cardiology, and Primary Care clinicians were surveyed. RESULTS: A total of 95 clinicians participated (52.5% response rate). Only 12% of clinicians reported having annual end-of-life discussions as advocated by the American Heart Association. In total, 52% of clinicians hesitated to discuss end-of-life care citing provider discomfort (11%), perception of patient (21%) or family (12%) unreadiness, fear of destroying hope (9%), or lack of time (8%). Tertiary and Community Cardiology clinicians (66%) attributed responsibility for end-of-life discussions to the heart failure cardiologist, while 66% of Primary Care clinicians felt it was their responsibility. Overall, 30% of clinicians reported a low or very low level of confidence in one or more of the following: initiating prognosis or end-of-life discussions, enrolling patients in hospice, or providing end-of-life care. Most clinicians expressed interest in further skills acquisition. CONCLUSION: Clinicians vary in their views and approaches to end-of-life discussions and care. Some lack confidence and most are interested in further skills acquisition.

ACEi/ARB for systolic heart failure: closing the quality gap with a sustainable intervention at an academic medical center.

BACKGROUND: National guidelines recommend angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensinogen receptor blocker (ARB) therapy for patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), including those with symptomatic heart failure (HF). However, guideline adherence has not been optimal. The goal of this quality improvement project is to devise and implement a sustainable care-delivery model in a 920-bed academic hospital center that would improve ACEi/ARB adherence before hospital discharge. METHODS: The Model of intervention is: (1) a computer-based daily screening program; (2) inpatient pharmacist e-flag message; and (3) alerts for inpatient care teams. Its operating algorithm: If eligible adult HF/LVSD inpatients are not on ACEi or ARB nor documentation of contraindications, a flag alert is generated; deficiency is confirmed by a pharmacist and conveyed to the patient-care teams; if alert is acted on and care brought into adherence, the screening program would not re-flag the same patients the succeeding day; if not, the patients would be re-flagged daily until reaching adherence. We compared ACEi/ARB adherence before, during, and after the intervention. RESULTS: Baseline performance (percentage of eligible HF/LVSD patients receiving ACEi/ARB) was 87.5%. After implementation of the Model the ACEi/ARB adherence rate at the time of hospital discharge rose to 96.7% (P < 0.002) and was sustained for 21 months without needing additional personnel. CONCLUSIONS: A carefully designed, computer-based care-delivery model is highly efficient and sustainable for enhancing ACEi/ARB adherence.

ACC/AHA classification of care metrics: performance measures and quality metrics: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have provided leadership in enhancing the quality of cardiovascular care, including the development of clinical performance measures and clinical registries that permit the evaluation of quality of care and stimulate quality improvement. Compliance with ACC/AHA performance measures and metrics encourages the provision of the strongest evidence-based quality of care, including therapies that are life-extending or life-enhancing. Among quality metrics, only a subset should be considered performance measures-that is, those measures specifically suitable for public reporting, external comparisons, and possibly pay-for-performance programs, in addition to quality improvement. These performance measures have been developed using ACC/AHA methodology, often in collaboration with other organizations, and include the process of public comment and peer review. Quality metrics are those measures that have been developed to support self assessment and quality improvement at the provider, hospital, and/or health care system level. These metrics represent valuable tools to aid clinicians and hospitals in improving quality of care and enhancing patient outcomes, but may not meet all specifications of formal performance measures. These quality metrics may also be considered "candidate" measures that with further research of field testing would meet the criteria for formal performance measures in the future. This measure classification is intended to aid providers, hospitals, health systems, and payers in identifying those measures that the ACC and AHA formally endorse as performance measures, while at the same time promoting the broader range of clinical metrics that are useful for quality improvement efforts.

ACC/AHA classification of care metrics: performance measures and quality metrics: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Performance Measures.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have provided leadership in enhancing the quality of cardiovascular care, including the development of clinical performance measures and clinical registries that permit the evaluation of quality of care and stimulate quality improvement. Compliance with ACC/AHA performance measures and metrics encourages the provision of the strongest evidence-based quality of care, including therapies that are life-extending or life-enhancing. Among quality metrics, only a subset should be considered performance measures-that is, those measures specifically suitable for public reporting, external comparisons, and possibly pay-for-performance programs, in addition to quality improvement. These performance measures have been developed using ACC/AHA methodology, often in collaboration with other organizations, and include the process of public comment and peer review. Quality metrics are those measures that have been developed to support self assessment and quality improvement at the provider, hospital, and/or health care system level. These metrics represent valuable tools to aid clinicians and hospitals in improving quality of care and enhancing patient outcomes, but may not meet all specifications of formal performance measures. These quality metrics may also be considered "candidate" measures that with further research or field testing would meet the criteria for formal performance measures in the future. This measure classification is intended to aid providers, hospitals, health systems, and payers in identifying those measures that the ACC and AHA formally endorse as performance measures, while at the same time promoting the broader range of clinical metrics that are useful for quality improvement efforts.