Barriers and motivators to national board certification as a certified anticoagulation care provider.

Professionals voice confusion between the distinctions of board certification and educational certificate courses, and note barriers and motivators in obtaining national anticoagulation board certification. To identify barriers vs. motivators in obtaining board certification and detail the differences in board certification and educational certificate courses, an IRB-approved electronic survey was sent to professionals completing the University of Southern Indiana (USI) Anticoagulation Therapy educational certificate course (n = 491) and existing Certified Anticoagulation Care Providers (CACP, n = 622). A total of 1049 surveys were delivered successfully, with a 26% response rate (USI = 62, CACP = 211.) Respondents identified as a nurse (n = 52, 19%), advanced practice nurse (n = 14, 5.1%), pharmacist (n = 206, 75.5%) or physician (n = 5, 1.8%). Overall, respondents indicated board certification via CACP has significant impact on patient/organizational outcomes (n = 118, 43.2%). Top motivators for board certification include personal accomplishment (n = 147, 53%) and professional growth (n = 139, 50.9%). Top barriers include lack of time to prepare (n = 102, 37.3%,) board certification exam cost (n = 95, 34.8%), and for CACP recertification, and requirement to recertify by examination (n = 74, 35.1%). Of board-certified respondents, 45.4% indicated they were not employed at an Anticoagulation Center of Excellence (ACE), 34.8% employed at an ACE and 16.8% were unsure of ACE status. Narrative comments were obtained and evaluated. Significant personal and professional barriers exist in completing, and subsequently maintaining, board certification in anticoagulation. This offers great insight for NCBAP to invoke changes to support clinicians and healthcare organizations in seeking and maintaining CACP credentialing, a component of ACE attainment.

Designing a Strategy Trial for the Management of Gout: The Use of a Modified Delphi Panel.

OBJECTIVE: Disagreement exists between rheumatology and primary care societies regarding gout management. This paper describes a formal process for gathering input from stakeholders in the planning of a trial to compare gout management strategies. METHODS: We recruited patients, nurses, physician assistants, primary care clinicians, and rheumatologists to participate in a modified Delphi panel (mDP) to provide input on design of a trial focused on optimal management for primary care patients with gout. The 16 panelists received a plain-language briefing document that discussed the rationale for the trial, key clinical issues in gout, and aspects of trial design. The panelists also received information and considerations on nine voting questions (VQs), judged to be the key design questions. Cognitive interviews with panelists ensured that the VQs were understood by the range of panelists involved in the mDP. Panelists were asked to score all VQs from 1 (definitely no) to 9 (definitely yes). Two voting rounds were conducted-round 1 by email and round 2 by video conference. RESULTS: The VQs were modified through the cognitive interviews. The round 1 voting resulted in consensus on eight items, with consensus defined as median voting score in the same tercile (1-3, 4-6 or 7-9). Re-voting at the meeting (round 2) reached consensus on the remaining item. CONCLUSION: An mDP with various stakeholders facilitated consensus on the design of a trial of different management strategies for chronic gout. This method may be useful for designing trials of clinical questions with substantial disagreement across stakeholders.

Prediction Score for Anticoagulation Control Quality Among Older Adults.

BACKGROUND: Time in the therapeutic range (TTR) is associated with the effectiveness and safety of vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy. To optimize prescribing of VKA, we aimed to develop and validate a prediction model for TTR in older adults taking VKA for nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and venous thromboembolism. METHODS AND RESULTS: The study cohort comprised patients aged ≥65 years who were taking VKA for atrial fibrillation or venous thromboembolism and who were identified in the 2 US electronic health record databases linked with Medicare claims data from 2007 through 2014. With the predictors identified from a systematic review and clinical knowledge, we built a prediction model for TTR, using one electronic health record system as the training set and the other as the validation set. We compared the performance of the new models to that of a published prediction score for TTR, SAMe-TT2R2. Based on 1663 patients in the training set and 1181 in the validation set, our optimized score included 42 variables and the simplified model included 7 variables, abbreviated as PROSPER (Pneumonia, Renal dysfunction, Oozing blood [prior bleeding], Staying in hospital ≥7 days, Pain medication use, no Enhanced [structured] anticoagulation services, Rx for antibiotics). The PROSPER score outperformed SAMe-TT2R2 when predicting both TTR ≥70% (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.67 versus 0.55) and the thromboembolic and bleeding outcomes (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.62 versus 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Our geriatric TTR score can be used as a clinical decision aid to select appropriate candidates to receive VKA therapy and as a research tool to address confounding and treatment effect heterogeneity by anticoagulation quality.

Use of direct oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in elderly patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Four direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are available for the prevention of stroke in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF): dabigatran (a direct thrombin inhibitor); and rivaroxaban, apixaban, and edoxaban (factor Xa inhibitors). This article summarizes the safety and efficacy of DOACs for the prevention of stroke in elderly NVAF patients. METHODS: PubMed was searched to identify published results of randomized, controlled trials evaluating DOACs for stroke prevention in elderly NVAF patients. Pharmacologic and dose recommendations were obtained from the package inserts. CONCLUSIONS: DOACs are at least as effective as warfarin for stroke prevention in elderly patients with NVAF. Compared with warfarin, DOACs were associated with reduced risk of intracranial hemorrhage, while some DOACs demonstrated an increase in other bleeding events (e.g., gastrointestinal). The faster onset and offset of action and fewer food and drug interactions of DOACs may be an advantage over warfarin for some patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: DOACs are an alternative to warfarin with overall equivalent safety and efficacy in elderly patients with NVAF, and may be preferable for some. Stroke risk must always be balanced against potential bleeding risk when determining an optimal anticoagulation treatment plan. Patients' needs and preferences will also impact this decision.

Guidance for the practical management of the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) in VTE treatment.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious medical condition associated with significant morbidity and mortality, and an incidence that is expected to double in the next forty years. The advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) has catalyzed significant changes in the therapeutic landscape of VTE treatment. As such, it is imperative that clinicians become familiar with and appropriately implement new treatment paradigms. This manuscript, initiated by the Anticoagulation Forum, provides clinical guidance for VTE treatment with the DOACs. When possible, guidance statements are supported by existing published evidence and guidelines. In instances where evidence or guidelines are lacking, guidance statements represent the consensus opinion of all authors of this manuscript and are endorsed by the Board of Directors of the Anticoagulation Forum.The authors of this manuscript first developed a list of pivotal practical questions related to real-world clinical scenarios involving the use of DOACs for VTE treatment. We then performed a PubMed search for topics and key words including, but not limited to, apixaban, antidote, bridging, cancer, care transitions, dabigatran, direct oral anticoagulant, deep vein thrombosis, edoxaban, interactions, measurement, perioperative, pregnancy, pulmonary embolism, reversal, rivaroxaban, switching, \thrombophilia, venous thromboembolism, and warfarin to answer these questions. Non- English publications and publications > 10 years old were excluded. In an effort to provide practical information about the use of DOACs for VTE treatment, answers to each question are provided in the form of guidance statements, with the intent of high utility and applicability for frontline clinicians across a multitude of care settings.

Limited English proficient patients and time spent in therapeutic range in a warfarin anticoagulation clinic.

BACKGROUND: While anticoagulation clinics have been shown to deliver tailored, high-quality care to patients receiving warfarin therapy, communication barriers with limited English proficient (LEP) patients may lead to disparities in anticoagulation outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed data on 3770 patients receiving care from the Massachusetts General Hospital Anticoagulation Management Service (AMS) from 2009 to 2010. This included data on international normalized ratio (INR) tests and patient characteristics, including language and whether AMS used a surrogate for primary communication. We calculated percent time in therapeutic range (TTR for INR between 2.0 and 3.0) and time in danger range (TDR for INR <1.8 or >3.5) using the standard Rosendaal interpolation method. There were 241 LEP patients; LEP patients, compared with non-LEP patients, had a higher number of comorbidities (3.2 versus 2.9 comorbidities, P=0.004), were more frequently uninsured (17.0% versus 4.3%, P<0.001), and less educated (47.7% versus 6.0% ≤high school education, P<0.001). LEP patients compared with non-LEP patients spent less TTR (71.6% versus 74.0%, P=0.007) and more TDR (12.9% versus 11.3%, P=0.018). In adjusted analyses, LEP patients had lower TTR as compared with non-LEP patients (OR 1.5, 95% CI [1.1, 2.2]). LEP patients who used a communication surrogate spent less TTR and more TDR. CONCLUSION: Even within a large anticoagulation clinic with a high average TTR, a small but significant decrease in TTR was observed for LEP patients compared with English speakers. Future studies are warranted to explore how the use of professional interpreters impact TTR for LEP patients.

Unfractionated heparin: a nursing dilemma.

Nurses face challenges in all aspects of their practice, especially with administering and monitoring drugs in a safe, effective manner. Key factors known to affect drug administration include general drug knowledge, formal nurse education, continuing education needs, clinical experience, and the nationwide nursing shortage. Other factors are advances in technologic aids and quality improvement initiatives. Emphasis on patient safety is growing, especially as it relates to drug therapy and high-alert drugs such as unfractionated heparin (UFH). Specific interventions related to UFH administration can enhance patient care management. Because nurses are at the site of direct patient care, they are often in an opportune position for identifying medication errors. At the same time, and most important, nurses need to collaborate with other health care professionals to actively develop solutions to minimize these errors. Adopting a systems approach and working collaboratively with an interdisciplinary team can result in improved patient outcomes.

The effect of low-dose warfarin on the risk of stroke in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation increases the risk of stroke, presumably from atrial thromboemboli. There is uncertainty about the efficacy and risks of long-term warfarin therapy to prevent stroke. METHODS: We conducted an unblinded, randomized, controlled trial of long-term, low-dose warfarin therapy (target prothrombin-time ratio, 1.2 to 1.5) in patients with nonrheumatic atrial fibrillation. The control group was not given warfarin but could choose to take aspirin. RESULTS: A total of 420 patients entered the trial (212 in the warfarin group and 208 in the control group) and were followed for an average of 2.2 years. Prothrombin times in the warfarin group were in the target range 83 percent of the time. Only 10 percent of the patients assigned to receive warfarin discontinued the drug permanently. There were 2 strokes in the warfarin group (incidence, 0.41 percent per year) as compared with 13 strokes in the control group (incidence, 2.98 percent per year), for a reduction of 86 percent in the risk of stroke (warfarin:control incidence ratio = 0.14; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.04 to 0.49; P = 0.0022). There were 37 deaths altogether. The death rate was markedly lower in the warfarin group than in the control group: 2.25 percent as compared with 5.97 percent per year, for an incidence ratio of 0.38 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.82; P = 0.005). There was one fatal hemorrhage in each group. The frequency of bleeding events that led to hospitalization or transfusion was essentially the same in both groups. The warfarin group had a higher rate of minor hemorrhage than the control group (38 vs. 21 patients). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term low-dose warfarin therapy is highly effective in preventing stroke in patients with non-rheumatic atrial fibrillation, and can be quite safe with careful monitoring.