The Impact of Health Care Algorithms on Racial and Ethnic Disparities : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing concern for the potential impact of health care algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities. PURPOSE: To examine the evidence on how health care algorithms and associated mitigation strategies affect racial and ethnic disparities. DATA SOURCES: Several databases were searched for relevant studies published from 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Using predefined criteria and dual review, studies were screened and selected to determine: 1) the effect of algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care outcomes and 2) the effect of strategies or approaches to mitigate racial and ethnic bias in the development, validation, dissemination, and implementation of algorithms. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes of interest (that is, access to health care, quality of care, and health outcomes) were extracted with risk-of-bias assessment using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool and adapted CARE-CPM (Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models) equity extension. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-three studies (51 modeling, 4 retrospective, 2 prospective, 5 prepost studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial) were included. Heterogenous evidence on algorithms was found to: a) reduce disparities (for example, the revised kidney allocation system), b) perpetuate or exacerbate disparities (for example, severity-of-illness scores applied to critical care resource allocation), and/or c) have no statistically significant effect on select outcomes (for example, the HEART Pathway [history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin]). To mitigate disparities, 7 strategies were identified: removing an input variable, replacing a variable, adding race, adding a non-race-based variable, changing the racial and ethnic composition of the population used in model development, creating separate thresholds for subpopulations, and modifying algorithmic analytic techniques. LIMITATION: Results are mostly based on modeling studies and may be highly context-specific. CONCLUSION: Algorithms can mitigate, perpetuate, and exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities, regardless of the explicit use of race and ethnicity, but evidence is heterogeneous. Intentionality and implementation of the algorithm can impact the effect on disparities, and there may be tradeoffs in outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.

The Role of Hospital Characteristics in Clinical and Quality Outcomes for Gastrointestinal Bleeding in a National Cohort.

INTRODUCTION: There is substantial variability in patient outcomes for gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) across hospitals. This study aimed to identify hospital factors associated with GIB outcomes. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries hospitalized for GIB from 2016 to 2018. These data were merged with the American Hospital Association Annual Survey data to incorporate hospital characteristics. We used generalized linear mixed-effect models to estimate the effect of hospital-level characteristics on patient outcomes after adjusting for patient risk factors including anticoagulant and antiplatelet use, recent GIB, and comorbidities. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality, and secondary outcomes included length of stay and a composite outcome of 30-day readmission or mortality. RESULTS: Factors associated with improved GIB 30-day mortality included large hospital size (defined as beds >400, odds ratio [OR] 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.90-0.97), greater case volume (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.96-0.98), increased resident and nurse staffing (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.83-0.94), and blood donor center designation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.88-0.99). Patients treated at a hospital with multiple advanced capabilities, such as availability of advanced endoscopy, advanced intensive care unit (ICU) capabilities (both a medical-surgical ICU and cardiac ICU), blood donor center, and liver transplant center, had a 22% reduction in 30-day mortality risk, compared with those hospitalized in a hospital with none of these services (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.91). However, length of stay increased with additional services. DISCUSSION: Patients hospitalized for GIB at hospitals with multiple advanced specialized capabilities have lower mortality but longer lengths of stay. Further research should examine the processes of care linked to these services that contribute to improved mortality in GIB.

Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models Extension: Development of a Critical Appraisal Tool Extension to Assess Racial and Ethnic Equity-Related Risk of Bias for Clinical Prediction Models.

Introduction: Despite mounting evidence that the inclusion of race and ethnicity in clinical prediction models may contribute to health disparities, existing critical appraisal tools do not directly address such equity considerations. Objective: This study developed a critical appraisal tool extension to assess algorithmic bias in clinical prediction models. Methods: A modified e-Delphi approach was utilized to develop and obtain expert consensus on a set of racial and ethnic equity-based signaling questions for appraisal of risk of bias in clinical prediction models. Through a series of virtual meetings, initial pilot application, and an online survey, individuals with expertise in clinical prediction model development, systematic review methodology, and health equity developed and refined this tool. Results: Consensus was reached for ten equity-based signaling questions, which led to the development of the Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models (CARE-CPM) extension. This extension is intended for use along with existing critical appraisal tools for clinical prediction models. Conclusion: CARE-CPM provides a valuable risk-of-bias assessment tool extension for clinical prediction models to identify potential algorithmic bias and health equity concerns. Further research is needed to test usability, interrater reliability, and application to decision-makers.

AGA clinical practice guideline on the role of biomarkers for the management of Crohn's Disease

Biomarkers are used frequently for evaluation and monitoring of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of CD. A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to formulate patient-centered clinical questions and review evidence on the performance of fecal calprotectin, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and Endoscopic Healing Index in patients with established CD who were asymptomatic, had symptoms of varying severity, or were in surgically induced remission. Biomarker performance was assessed against the gold standard of endoscopic activity, defined as a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease ≥3. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for use of biomarkers in various settings. Implementation considerations were formulated for each recommendation to inform clinical practice. The guideline panel made 11 conditional recommendations. In patients with CD in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over symptoms alone. In patients in symptomatic remission, a fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g and normal CRP rules out active inflammation, avoiding endoscopic evaluation for assessment of disease activity. However, elevated biomarkers in this setting merit confirmation with endoscopy before treatment adjustment. In patients with CD with mild symptoms, neither normal nor elevated biomarkers alone are sufficiently accurate to determine endoscopic activity. In patients with CD with moderate to severe symptoms, elevated fecal calprotectin or serum CRP suggests endoscopic activity, precluding routine endoscopic assessment for disease activity. In patients with CD in surgically induced remission in low-risk patients on pharmacologic prophylaxis, a normal fecal calprotectin reliably rules out endoscopic recurrence. In other postoperative settings, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment for establishing postoperative recurrence. In patients with CD, fecal calprotectin and serum CRP can inform disease management in both asymptomatic and symptomatic disease. Discordance between symptom assessment and biomarker value may merit endoscopic evaluation for confirmation of status of disease activity.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Crohn's Disease.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarkers are used frequently for evaluation and monitoring of patients with Crohn's disease (CD). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of CD. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to formulate patient-centered clinical questions and review evidence on the performance of fecal calprotectin, serum C-reactive protein (CRP), and Endoscopic Healing Index in patients with established CD who were asymptomatic, had symptoms of varying severity, or were in surgically induced remission. Biomarker performance was assessed against the gold standard of endoscopic activity, defined as a Simple Endoscopic Score for Crohn's Disease ≥3. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for use of biomarkers in various settings. Implementation considerations were formulated for each recommendation to inform clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 11 conditional recommendations. In patients with CD in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over symptoms alone. In patients in symptomatic remission, a fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g and normal CRP rules out active inflammation, avoiding endoscopic evaluation for assessment of disease activity. However, elevated biomarkers in this setting merit confirmation with endoscopy before treatment adjustment. In patients with CD with mild symptoms, neither normal nor elevated biomarkers alone are sufficiently accurate to determine endoscopic activity. In patients with CD with moderate to severe symptoms, elevated fecal calprotectin or serum CRP suggests endoscopic activity, precluding routine endoscopic assessment for disease activity. In patients with CD in surgically induced remission in low-risk patients on pharmacologic prophylaxis, a normal fecal calprotectin reliably rules out endoscopic recurrence. In other postoperative settings, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment for establishing postoperative recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CD, fecal calprotectin and serum CRP can inform disease management in both asymptomatic and symptomatic disease. Discordance between symptom assessment and biomarker value may merit endoscopic evaluation for confirmation of status of disease activity.

Promoting Equity In Clinical Decision Making: Dismantling Race-Based Medicine.

As the use of artificial intelligence has spread rapidly throughout the US health care system, concerns have been raised about racial and ethnic biases built into the algorithms that often guide clinical decision making. Race-based medicine, which relies on algorithms that use race as a proxy for biological differences, has led to treatment patterns that are inappropriate, unjust, and harmful to minoritized racial and ethnic groups. These patterns have contributed to persistent disparities in health and health care. To reduce these disparities, we recommend a race-aware approach to clinical decision support that considers social and environmental factors such as structural racism and social determinants of health. Recent policy changes in medical specialty societies and innovations in algorithm development represent progress on the path to dismantling race-based medicine. Success will require continued commitment and sustained efforts among stakeholders in the health care, research, and technology sectors. Increasing the diversity of clinical trial populations, broadening the focus of precision medicine, improving education about the complex factors shaping health outcomes, and developing new guidelines and policies to enable culturally responsive care are important next steps.

Reducing disparities and achieving health equity in colorectal cancer screening.

Increases in colorectal cancer screening are linked to the declining incidence of the disease over the past three decades. These favorable trends, however, are not observed in marginalized racial and ethnic populations with disproportionately lower rates of screening, higher disease incidence, and increased mortality despite advances in health technology and policy. This review describes the differences in screening uptake and test selection amongst racial and ethnic groups, discusses known obstacles and facilitators that impact screening, and highlights existing frameworks developed to achieve health equity in colorectal cancer screening.

AGA clinical practice guideline on the role of biomarkers for the management of ulcerative colitis

Biomarkers are used frequently for noninvasive monitoring and treatment decision making in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of UC. A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, and conduct an evidence synthesis on the clinical performance of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin as biomarkers of disease activity in patients with established UC in symptomatic remission or with active symptoms. The guideline panel used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for the use of biomarkers for monitoring and management of UC and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice. The guideline panel made 7 conditional recommendations. In patients with UC in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests the use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over a symptom-based monitoring strategy. For patients in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g, normal fecal lactoferrin, and/or normal CRP to rule out active inflammation and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. In patients with UC with moderate to severe symptoms, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin >150 µg/g, elevated fecal lactoferrin, or elevated CRP to inform treatment decisions and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. However, in patients in symptomatic remission but elevated biomarkers, and in patients with moderate to severe symptoms with normal biomarkers, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease to inform treatment decisions. In patients with UC with mild symptoms, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease activity to inform treatment decisions. The panel identified the use of a biomarker-based monitoring strategy over an endoscopy-based monitoring strategy as a knowledge gap. The panel also proposed key implementation considerations for optimal use of biomarkers, and identified areas for future research. In patients with UC, noninvasive biomarkers, including fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, and serum CRP can inform disease monitoring and management.

AGA Clinical Practice Guideline on the Role of Biomarkers for the Management of Ulcerative Colitis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Biomarkers are used frequently for noninvasive monitoring and treatment decision making in the management of patients with ulcerative colitis (UC). This American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) guideline is intended to support practitioners in decisions about the use of biomarkers for the management of UC. METHODS: A multidisciplinary panel of content experts and guideline methodologists used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework to prioritize clinical questions, identify patient-centered outcomes, and conduct an evidence synthesis on the clinical performance of serum C-reactive protein (CRP), fecal calprotectin, and fecal lactoferrin as biomarkers of disease activity in patients with established UC in symptomatic remission or with active symptoms. The guideline panel used the Evidence-to-Decision framework to develop recommendations for the use of biomarkers for monitoring and management of UC and provided implementation considerations for clinical practice. RESULTS: The guideline panel made 7 conditional recommendations. In patients with UC in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests the use of a biomarker- and symptom-based monitoring strategy over a symptom-based monitoring strategy. For patients in symptomatic remission, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin <150 µg/g, normal fecal lactoferrin, and/or normal CRP to rule out active inflammation and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. In patients with UC with moderate to severe symptoms, the panel suggests using fecal calprotectin >150 µg/g, elevated fecal lactoferrin, or elevated CRP to inform treatment decisions and avoid routine endoscopic assessment of disease. However, in patients in symptomatic remission but elevated biomarkers, and in patients with moderate to severe symptoms with normal biomarkers, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease to inform treatment decisions. In patients with UC with mild symptoms, the panel suggests endoscopic assessment of disease activity to inform treatment decisions. The panel identified the use of a biomarker-based monitoring strategy over an endoscopy-based monitoring strategy as a knowledge gap. The panel also proposed key implementation considerations for optimal use of biomarkers, and identified areas for future research. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with UC, noninvasive biomarkers, including fecal calprotectin, fecal lactoferrin, and serum CRP can inform disease monitoring and management.

Workplace Violence in Healthcare Settings: A Scoping Review of Guidelines and Systematic Reviews.

Workplace violence in healthcare settings is alarmingly common and represents significant financial and human cost. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarize evidence on strategies to prevent and/or manage workplace violence in healthcare settings. Searches were limited to evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews published between 2015 and 2021. Multiple databases were searched and screened. Quality of the included guidelines and reviews was also assessed. Three guidelines and 33 systematic reviews were included. Both the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 2015 and Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario 2019 guidelines provided useful recommendations for building a comprehensive prevention program. Evidence-based risk assessment, prevention and management, and education and training are all central components. Regular reassessment and adjustment is required. Included reviews (n = 33) were grouped into five main categories: violence toward nurses (n = 10); violence toward healthcare workers in general (n = 8); violence in the emergency department (n = 5); violence related to mental health (n = 5); and measurement related to workplace violence (n = 5). Multicomponent interventions were often more effective than those applied in isolation. We found consistent support for certain strategies including education and training, post-incident debriefing, multidisciplinary rapid response teams, and environmental modifications; however, the strength of evidence and certainty of conclusions were limited across reviews. This scoping review found that strong leadership that cultivates and enforces a culture of inclusivity, support, and respect is a prerequisite for a successful workplace violence prevention program. Rigorous comparative effectiveness research testing interventions are needed.

Interventions for malnutrition in hospitalized adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Malnutrition is associated with poor outcomes in hospitalized adults. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of hospital-initiated interventions for patients with malnutrition. METHODS: Data sources included MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library from January 1, 2000 to June 3, 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing interventions for hospitalized adults diagnosed or identified as at-risk for malnutrition using malnutrition screening and diagnostic assessment tools. Individual reviewers extracted study data and performed quality checks for accuracy. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model with variance correction. We assessed the overall strength of evidence at the outcome level. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. RESULTS: We found 11 RCTs that assessed two types of interventions: specialized nutrition care (8 RCTs) and increased protein provision (3 RCTs). The pooled findings of 11 RCTs found moderate strength of evidence that specialized nutrition care and increased protein provision reduced mortality by 21% (relative risk [RR]: 0.79, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.63-0.98; absolute risk reduction [ARR]: -0.02, 95% CI: -0.03 to -0.00). Pooled estimates indicated a nonsignificant decrease of 0.18 days in the length of stay (9 RCTs) and a 10% reduction in readmissions (7 RCTs). No eligible RCTs assessed parenteral or enteral nutrition. CONCLUSION: Certain malnutrition-focused hospital-initiated interventions (e.g., specialized nutrition care and increased protein provision) reduce mortality and may improve the quality of life among patients at risk for or diagnosed with malnutrition. Future trials are needed to assess the effectiveness of parenteral and enteral nutrition.

Hospital Performance for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Mortality, Length of Stay, and Complication Rates in the USA.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals are held accountable for quality metrics, through public reporting programs and by payers. However, little is known about hospital performance in GIB nationally. METHODS: A retrospective longitudinal analysis utilizing Vizient's database was performed to identify GIB hospitalizations across 349 hospitals from 2016 to 2018. The primary outcome was risk-adjusted mortality; secondary outcomes included risk-adjusted length of stay and complication rate. Trends in performance were characterized using quintiles, with analysis of concordance within hospitals and across hospitals over time. Pearson's correlation coefficients were performed to assess the relationship among metrics. RESULTS: 28.1% of hospitals had a steadily improving risk-adjusted mortality index from 2016 to 2018, while 15.5% were steadily worsening in mortality. For LOS, 25.2% of hospitals were improving, while 22.4% deteriorated. For complication rate, 22.9% of hospitals steadily improved, while 19.2% of hospitals deteriorated. Although many hospitals improved substantially in one outcome, they did not necessarily improve in all outcomes. Of the 98 hospitals that steadily improved in mortality from 2016 to 2018, only 8 out of 98 steadily improved in all three outcomes (8.3%). Across all 3 years, mortality was weakly correlated with LOS (r = 0.22, p < 0.001), but not with the rate of complications (r = 0.08, p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: Hospital performance metrics for GIB, such as mortality, length of stay, and complication rate, are weakly correlated and thus likely measure different aspects of care. While many hospitals improved over time, few hospitals improved in all three metrics. Additionally, many hospitals are deteriorating over time, and further research is needed to determine which care processes are associated with better outcomes.

Interventions to Reduce Hospital Length of Stay in High-risk Populations: A Systematic Review.

Importance: Many strategies to reduce hospital length of stay (LOS) have been implemented, but few studies have evaluated hospital-led interventions focused on high-risk populations. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Learning Health System panel commissioned this study to further evaluate system-level interventions for LOS reduction. Objective: To identify and synthesize evidence regarding potential systems-level strategies to reduce LOS for patients at high risk for prolonged LOS. Evidence Review: Multiple databases, including MEDLINE and Embase, were searched for English-language systematic reviews from January 1, 2010, through September 30, 2020, with updated searches through January 19, 2021. The scope of the protocol was determined with input from AHRQ Key Informants. Systematic reviews were included if they reported on hospital-led interventions intended to decrease LOS for high-risk populations, defined as those with high-risk medical conditions or socioeconomically vulnerable populations (eg, patients with high levels of socioeconomic risk, who are medically uninsured or underinsured, with limited English proficiency, or who are hospitalized at a safety-net, tertiary, or quaternary care institution). Exclusion criteria included interventions that were conducted outside of the hospital setting, including community health programs. Data extraction was conducted independently, with extraction of strength of evidence (SOE) ratings provided by systematic reviews; if unavailable, SOE was assessed using the AHRQ Evidence-Based Practice Center methods guide. Findings: Our searches yielded 4432 potential studies. We included 19 systematic reviews reported in 20 articles. The reviews described 8 strategies for reducing LOS in high-risk populations: discharge planning, geriatric assessment, medication management, clinical pathways, interdisciplinary or multidisciplinary care, case management, hospitalist services, and telehealth. Interventions were most frequently designed for older patients, often those who were frail (9 studies), or patients with heart failure. There were notable evidence gaps, as there were no systematic reviews studying interventions for patients with socioeconomic risk. For patients with medically complex conditions, discharge planning, medication management, and interdisciplinary care teams were associated with inconsistent outcomes (LOS, readmissions, mortality) across populations. For patients with heart failure, clinical pathways and case management were associated with reduced length of stay (clinical pathways: mean difference reduction, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.33 to 2.44] days; case management: mean difference reduction, 1.28 [95% CI, 0.52 to 2.04] days). Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found inconsistent results across all high-risk populations on the effectiveness associated with interventions, such as discharge planning, that are often widely used by health systems. This systematic review highlights important evidence gaps, such as the lack of existing systematic reviews focused on patients with socioeconomic risk factors, and the need for further research.

AGA rapid review and guideline for SARS-CoV2 testing and endoscopy post-vaccination: 2021 update

This guideline provides updated recommendations on the role of preprocedure testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in individuals undergoing endoscopy in the post-vaccination period and replaces the prior guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) (released July 29, 2020). Since the start of the pandemic, our increased understanding of transmission has facilitated the implementation of practices to promote patient and health care worker (HCW) safety. Simultaneously, there has been increasing recognition of the potential harm associated with delays in patient care, as well as inefficiency of endoscopy units. With widespread vaccination of HCWs and the general population, a re-evaluation of AGA's prior recommendations was warranted. In order to update the role of preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2, the AGA guideline panel reviewed the evidence on prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infections in individuals undergoing endoscopy; patient and HCW risk of infections that may be acquired immediately before, during, or after endoscopy; effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing risk of infections and transmission; patient and HCW anxiety; patient delays in care and potential impact on cancer burden; and endoscopy volumes. The panel considered the certainty of the evidence, weighed the benefits and harms of routine preprocedure testing, and considered burden, equity, and cost using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Based on very low certainty evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation against routine preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2 in patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy. The panel placed a high value on minimizing additional delays in patient care, acknowledging the reduced endoscopy volumes, downstream impact on delayed cancer diagnoses, and burden of testing on patients.

A Multimodal Interdisciplinary QI Intervention Is Associated with Reduction in After Hours Inpatient Endoscopy Cases.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Increasing demand for inpatient endoscopic services results in performing more non-emergent endoscopic cases after-hours, which poses risks to patient safety and negatively impacts patient and provider satisfaction. This study sought to quantify the existing state using quality improvement (QI) methodology, design targeted interventions, and determine their effectiveness. METHODS: We conducted an existing state evaluation through a process map, time-series study, and caseload analysis from 7/2017-12/2018. Using end-of-workday (EOW) as a proxy for patient/provider dissatisfaction and risk for patient safety events, we performed a prospective evaluation of a staged interdisciplinary multimodal intervention aimed to decrease the proportion of days with EOW after 7PM, decrease the proportion of cases begun after 5PM, and decrease EOW variability. The post-intervention period was 6/2019-2/2020. RESULTS: Based on existing state analyses, we implemented a series of targeted interventions: (1) provider workflow tips, (2) expedited transport for select patients, (3) pathway to reschedule appropriate cases to outpatient endoscopy, and (4) increased staffing for high caseload days through resource pooling. The proportion of days with EOW after 7PM decreased from 42.4% to 29.3% (caseload-adjusted odds ratio of 0.39, p< 0.001). Despite increased caseload, cases begun after 5PM decreased from 17.5% to 14.2% (OR 0.75, p = 0.009). EOW SD decreased from 2:20 hours to 1:36 hours. CONCLUSIONS: The multimodal intervention reduced days with EOW after 7PM and the proportion of cases begun after 5PM, despite increased caseload. This study shows how applying research methods to implement QI interventions successfully decreases late inpatient endoscopic cases.

Does endoscopic intervention prevent subsequent gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with left ventricular assist devices? A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are at increased risk for recurrent gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) and repeat endoscopic procedures. We assessed the frequency of endoscopy for GIB in patients with LVADs and the impact of endoscopic intervention on preventing a subsequent GIB. AIM: To evaluate for an association between endoscopic intervention and subsequent GIB. Secondary aims were to assess the frequency of GIB in our cohort, describe GIB presentations and sources identified, and determine risk factors for recurrent GIB. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all patients at a large academic institution who underwent LVAD implantation from January 2011 - December 2018 and assessed all hospital encounters for GIB through December 2019. We performed a descriptive analysis of the GIB burden and the outcome of endoscopic procedures performed. We performed multivariate logistic regression to evaluate the association between endoscopic intervention and subsequent GIB. RESULTS: In the cohort of 295 patients, 97 (32.9%) had at least one GIB hospital encounter. There were 238 hospital encounters, with 55.4% (132/238) within the first year of LVAD implantation. GIB resolved on its own by discharge in 69.8% (164/235) encounters. Recurrent GIB occurred in 55.5% (54/97) of patients, accounting for 59.2% (141/238) of all encounters. Of the 85.7% (204/238) of encounters that included at least one endoscopic evaluation, an endoscopic intervention was performed in 34.8% (71/204). The adjusted odds ratio for subsequent GIB if an endoscopic intervention was performed during a GIB encounter was not significant (odds ratio 1.18, P = 0.58). CONCLUSION: Patients implanted with LVADs whom experience recurrent GIB frequently undergo repeat admissions and endoscopic procedures. In this retrospective cohort study, adherence to endoscopic guidelines for performing endoscopic interventions did not significantly decrease the odds of subsequent GIB, thus suggesting the uniqueness of the LVAD population. A prospective study is needed to identify patients with LVAD at risk of recurrent GIB and determine more effective management strategies.

AGA Rapid Review and Guideline for SARS-CoV2 Testing and Endoscopy Post-Vaccination: 2021 Update.

This guideline provides updated recommendations on the role of preprocedure testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) in individuals undergoing endoscopy in the post-vaccination period and replaces the prior guideline from the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA) (released July 29, 2020). Since the start of the pandemic, our increased understanding of transmission has facilitated the implementation of practices to promote patient and health care worker (HCW) safety. Simultaneously, there has been increasing recognition of the potential harm associated with delays in patient care, as well as inefficiency of endoscopy units. With widespread vaccination of HCWs and the general population, a re-evaluation of AGA's prior recommendations was warranted. In order to update the role of preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2, the AGA guideline panel reviewed the evidence on prevalence of asymptomatic SARS-CoV2 infections in individuals undergoing endoscopy; patient and HCW risk of infections that may be acquired immediately before, during, or after endoscopy; effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine in reducing risk of infections and transmission; patient and HCW anxiety; patient delays in care and potential impact on cancer burden; and endoscopy volumes. The panel considered the certainty of the evidence, weighed the benefits and harms of routine preprocedure testing, and considered burden, equity, and cost using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Based on very low certainty evidence, the panel made a conditional recommendation against routine preprocedure testing for SARS-CoV2 in patients scheduled to undergo endoscopy. The panel placed a high value on minimizing additional delays in patient care, acknowledging the reduced endoscopy volumes, downstream impact on delayed cancer diagnoses, and burden of testing on patients.