Risk-stratified clinical pathways decrease the duration of hospitalization and costs of perioperative care after pancreatectomy.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pancreatic fistula is associated with adverse events, increased duration of stay and hospital costs. We developed perioperative care pathways stratified by postoperative pancreatic fistula risk with the aims of minimizing variations in care, improving quality, and decreasing costs. STUDY DESIGN: Three unique risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways-low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy, high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy, and distal pancreatectomy were developed and implemented. Consecutive patients treated after implementation of the risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways were compared with patients treated immediately prior. Duration of stay, rates of perioperative adverse effects, discharge disposition, and hospital readmission, as well as the associated costs of care, were evaluated. RESULTS: The median hospital stay after pancreatectomy decreased from 10 to 6 days after implementation of the risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways (P < .001), and the median cost of index hospitalization decreased by 22%. Decreased changes in median hospital stay and costs of hospitalization were observed in association with low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy (P < .05) and distal pancreatectomy (P < .05), but not high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy. The rates of 90-day adverse events, grade B/C postoperative pancreatic fistula, discharge to a facility other than home, or readmission did not change after implementation. CONCLUSION: Implementation of risk-stratified pancreatectomy clinical pathways decreased median stay and cost of index hospitalization after pancreatectomy without unfavorably affecting rates of perioperative adverse events or readmission, or discharge disposition. Outcomes were most favorably improved for low-risk pancreatoduodenectomy and distal pancreatectomy. Additional work is necessary to decrease the rate of postoperative pancreatic fistula, minimize variability, and improve outcomes after high-risk pancreatoduodenectomy.

Impact of an Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool on thromboprophylaxis for atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate thromboprophylaxis for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a national challenge. METHODS: We hypothesized that provision of decision support in the form of an Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool (AFDST) would improve thromboprophylaxis for AF patients. We conducted a cluster randomized trial involving 15 primary care practices and 1,493 adults with nonvalvular AF in an integrated health care system between April 2014 and February 2015. Physicians in the intervention group received patient-level treatment recommendations made by the AFDST. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with antithrombotic therapy that was discordant from AFDST recommendation. RESULTS: Treatment was discordant in 42% of 801 patients in the intervention group. Physicians reviewed reports for 240 patients. Among these patients, thromboprophylaxis was discordant in 63%, decreasing to 59% 1 year later (P = .02). In nonstratified analyses, changes in discordant care were not significantly different between the intervention group and control groups. In multivariate regression models, assignment to the intervention group resulted in a nonsignificant trend toward decreased discordance (P = .29), and being a patient of a resident physician (P = .02) and a higher HAS-BLED score predicted decreased discordance (P = .03), whereas female gender (P = .01) and a higher CHADSVASc score (P = .10) predicted increased discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients whose physicians reviewed recommendations of the decision support tool discordant therapy decreased significantly over 1 year. However, in nonstratified analyses, the intervention did not result in significant improvements in discordant antithrombotic therapy.

Using an Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool for Thromboprophylaxis in Atrial Fibrillation: Effect of Sex and Age.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the appropriateness of oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) in women and elderly adults, looking for patterns of undertreatment or unnecessary treatment. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Primary care practices of an academic healthcare system. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged 28-93) with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF) seen between March 2013 and February 2014 (N = 1,585). MEASUREMENTS: Treatment recommendations were made using an AF decision support tool (AFDST) based on projections of quality-adjusted life expectancy calculated using a decision analytical model that integrates individual-specific risk factors for stroke and hemorrhage. RESULTS: Treatment was discordant from AFDST-recommended treatment in 45% (326/725) of women and 39% (338/860) of men (P = .02). Although current treatment was discordant from recommended in 35% (89/258) of participants aged 85 and older and in 43% (575/1,328) of those younger than 85 (P = .01), many undertreated elderly adults were receiving aspirin as the sole antithrombotic agent. CONCLUSION: Physicians should understand that female sex is a significant risk factor for AF-related stroke and incorporate this into decision-making about thromboprophylaxis. Treating older adults with aspirin instead of OAT exposes them to significant risk of bleeding with little to no reduction in AF-related stroke risk.

Integrating real-time clinical information to provide estimates of net clinical benefit of antithrombotic therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines for anticoagulant therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation are based on stroke risk as calculated by either the CHADS2 or the CHA2DS2VASc scores and do not integrate bleeding risk in an explicit, quantitative manner. Our objective was to quantify the net clinical benefit resulting from improved decision making about antithrombotic therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: This study is a retrospective cohort study of 1876 adults with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation or flutter seen in primary care settings of an integrated healthcare delivery system between December 2012 and January 2014. Projections for quality-adjusted life expectancy reported as quality-adjusted life-years were calculated by a decision analytic model that integrates patient-specific risk factors for stroke and hemorrhage and examines strategies of no antithrombotic therapy, aspirin, or oral anticoagulation with warfarin. Net clinical benefit was defined by the gain or loss in quality-adjusted life expectancy between current treatment and treatment recommended by an Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool. Current treatment was discordant from treatment recommended by the Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool in 931 patients. A clinically significant gain in quality-adjusted life expectancy (defined as ≥0.1 quality-adjusted life-years) was projected in 832 patients. Subgroups were examined. For example, oral anticoagulant therapy was recommended for 188 who currently were receiving no antithrombotic therapy. For the entire cohort, a total of 736 quality-adjusted life-years could be gained were treatment changed to that recommended by the Atrial Fibrillation Decision Support Tool. CONCLUSIONS: Use of a decision support tool that integrates patient-specific stroke and bleeding risk could result in significant gains in quality-adjusted life expectancy for a primary care population of patients with atrial fibrillation.