Dataset Information

Barriers and Facilitators to the Outpatient Management of Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism From the Emergency Department.

ABSTRACT:

Study objective

Although recommended by professional society guidelines, outpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) from emergency departments (EDs) in the US remains uncommon. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators to the outpatient management of PE from the ED using implementation science methodology.

Methods

We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of emergency physicians using maximum variation sampling, aiming to recruit physicians with diverse practice patterns regarding the management of low-risk PE. We developed an interview guide using the implementation science frameworks-the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed in an iterative process.

Results

We interviewed 26 emergency physicians from 11 hospital systems, and the participants were diverse with regard to years in practice, practice setting, and engagement with outpatient management of PE. Although outer setting determinants, such as medicolegal climate, follow-up, and insurance status were universal, our participants revealed that the importance of these determinants were moderated by individual-level and inner setting determinants. Prominent themes included belief in consequences, belief in capabilities, and institutional support and culture. Inertia of clinical practice and complexity of the process were important subthemes.

Conclusion

In this qualitative study, clinicians reported common barriers and facilitators that initially focused on outer setting and external barriers but centered on clinician beliefs, fear, and local culture. Efforts to increase outpatient treatment of select patients with acute PE should be informed by these barriers and facilitators, which are aligned with the deimplementation theory.

SUBMITTER: Westafer LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10440853 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Barriers and Facilitators to the Outpatient Management of Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism From the Emergency Department.

Westafer Lauren M LM Jessen Erica E Zampi Michael M Boccio Eric E Casey Scott D SD Lindenauer Peter K PK Vinson David R DR

Annals of emergency medicine 20230412 3

<h4>Study objective</h4>Although recommended by professional society guidelines, outpatient management of low-risk pulmonary embolism (PE) from emergency departments (EDs) in the US remains uncommon. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators to the outpatient management of PE from the ED using implementation science methodology.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted semistructured interviews with a purposeful sample of emergency physicians using maximum variation sampling, aimi ...[more]

PMID: 37596016

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionMany emergency department (ED) patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) who meet low-risk criteria may be eligible for a short length of stay (LOS) (<24 hours), with expedited discharge home either directly from the ED or after a brief observation or hospitalization. We describe the association between expedited discharge and site of discharge on care satisfaction and quality of life (QOL) among patients with low-risk PE (PE Severity Index [PESI] Classes I-III).MethodsThis phone survey was conducted from September 2014 through April 2015 as part of a retrospective cohort study across 21 community EDs in Northern California. We surveyed low-risk patients with acute PE, treated predominantly with enoxaparin bridging and warfarin. All eligible patients were called 2-8 weeks after their index ED visit. PE-specific, patient-satisfaction questions addressed overall care, discharge instruction clarity, and LOS. We scored physical and mental QOL using a modified version of the validated Short Form Health Survey. Satisfaction and QOL were compared by LOS. For those with expedited discharge, we compared responses by site of discharge: ED vs. hospital, which included ED-based observation units. We used chi-square and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests as indicated.ResultsSurvey response rate was 82.3% (424 of 515 eligible patients). Median age of respondents was 64 years; 47.4% were male. Of the 145 patients (34.2%) with a LOS<24 hours, 65 (44.8%) were discharged home from the ED. Of all patients, 89.6% were satisfied with their overall care and 94.1% found instructions clear. Sixty-six percent were satisfied with their LOS, whereas 17.5% would have preferred a shorter LOS and 16.5% a longer LOS. There were no significant differences in satisfaction between patients with LOS<24 hours vs. ≥24 hours (p>0.13 for all). Physical QOL scores were significantly higher for expedited-discharge patients (p=0.01). Patients with expedited discharge home from the ED vs. the hospital had no significant difference in satisfaction (p>0.20 for all) or QOL (p>0.19 for all).ConclusionED patients with low-risk PE reported high satisfaction with their care in follow-up surveys. Expedited discharge (<24 hours) and site of discharge were not associated with differences in patient satisfaction.

Project description:ImportanceTreatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) with buprenorphine decreases opioid use and prevents morbidity and mortality. Emergency departments (EDs) are an important setting for buprenorphine initiation for patients with untreated OUD; however, readiness varies among ED clinicians.ObjectiveTo characterize barriers and facilitators of readiness to initiate buprenorphine for the treatment of OUD in the ED and identify opportunities to promote readiness across multiple clinician types.Design, setting, and participantsUsing data collected from April 1, 2018, to January 11, 2019, this mixed-methods formative evaluation grounded in the Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework included 4 geographically diverse academic EDs. Attending physicians (n = 113), residents (n = 107), and advanced practice clinicians (APCs) (n = 48) completed surveys electronically distributed to all ED clinicians (n = 396). A subset of participants (n = 74) also participated in 1 of 11 focus group discussions. Data were analyzed from June 1, 2018, to February 22, 2020.Main outcomes and measuresClinician readiness to initiate buprenorphine and provide referral for ongoing treatment for patients with OUD treated in the ED was assessed using a visual analog scale. Responders (268 of 396 [67.7%]) were dichotomized as less ready (scores 0-6) or most ready (scores 7-10). An ED-adapted Organizational Readiness to Change Assessment (ORCA) and 11 focus groups were used to assess ratings and perspectives on evidence and context-related factors to promote ED-initiated buprenorphine with referral for ongoing treatment, respectively.ResultsAmong the 268 survey respondents (153 of 260 were men [58.8%], with a mean [SD] of 7.1 [9.8] years since completing formal training), 56 (20.9%) indicated readiness to initiate buprenorphine for ED patients with OUD. Nine of 258 (3.5%) reported Drug Addiction Treatment Act of 2000 training completion. Compared with those who were less ready, clinicians who were most ready to initiate buprenorphine had higher mean scores across all ORCA Evidence subscales (3.50 [95% CI, 3.35-3.65] to 4.33 [95% CI, 4.13-4.53] vs 3.11 [95% CI, 3.03-3.20] to 3.60 [95% CI, 3.49-3.70]; P < .001) and on the Slack Resources of the ORCA Context subscales (3.32 [95% CI, 3.08-3.55] vs 3.0 [95% CI, 2.87-3.12]; P = .02). Barriers to ED-initiated buprenorphine included lack of training and experience in treating OUD with buprenorphine, concerns about ability to link to ongoing care, and competing needs and priorities for ED time and resources. Facilitators to ED-initiated buprenorphine included receiving education and training, development of local departmental protocols, and receiving feedback on patient experiences and gaps in quality of care.Conclusions and relevanceOnly a few ED clinicians had a high level of readiness to initiate buprenorphine; however, many expressed a willingness to learn with sufficient supports. Efforts to promote adoption of ED-initiated buprenorphine will require clinician and system-level changes.

Project description:Importance:The safety of the pulmonary embolism rule-out criteria (PERC), an 8-item block of clinical criteria aimed at ruling out pulmonary embolism (PE), has not been assessed in a randomized clinical trial. Objective:To prospectively validate the safety of a PERC-based strategy to rule out PE. Design, Setting, and Patients:A crossover cluster-randomized clinical noninferiority trial in 14 emergency departments in France. Patients with a low gestalt clinical probability of PE were included from August 2015 to September 2016, and followed up until December 2016. Interventions:Each center was randomized for the sequence of intervention periods. In the PERC period, the diagnosis of PE was excluded with no further testing if all 8 items of the PERC rule were negative. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary end point was the occurrence of a thromboembolic event during the 3-month follow-up period that was not initially diagnosed. The noninferiority margin was set at 1.5%. Secondary end points included the rate of computed tomographic pulmonary angiography (CTPA), median length of stay in the emergency department, and rate of hospital admission. Results:Among 1916 patients who were cluster-randomized (mean age 44 years, 980 [51%] women), 962 were assigned to the PERC group and 954 were assigned to the control group. A total of 1749 patients completed the trial. A PE was diagnosed at initial presentation in 26 patients in the control group (2.7%) vs 14 (1.5%) in the PERC group (difference, 1.3% [95% CI, -0.1% to 2.7%]; P = .052). One PE (0.1%) was diagnosed during follow-up in the PERC group vs none in the control group (difference, 0.1% [95% CI, -∞ to 0.8%]). The proportion of patients undergoing CTPA in the PERC group vs control group was 13% vs 23% (difference, -10% [95% CI, -13% to -6%]; P < .001). In the PERC group, rates were significantly reduced for the median length of emergency department stay (mean reduction, 36 minutes [95% CI, 4 to 68]) and hospital admission (difference, 3.3% [95% CI, 0.1% to 6.6%]). Conclusions and Relevance:Among very low-risk patients with suspected PE, randomization to a PERC strategy vs conventional strategy did not result in an inferior rate of thromboembolic events over 3 months. These findings support the safety of PERC for very low-risk patients presenting to the emergency department. Trial Registration:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02375919.

Dataset Information

Barriers and Facilitators to the Outpatient Management of Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism From the Emergency Department.

Study objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Barriers and Facilitators to the Outpatient Management of Low-risk Pulmonary Embolism From the Emergency Department.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets