scholarly journals MP05: Validation of the Canadian clinical practice guideline clinical decision aid for acute aortic syndrome

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S43-S44
Author(s):  
B. Paige ◽  
A. Maeng ◽  
D. Savage ◽  
R. Ohle ◽  
MBBCh MA
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Confidence Intervals ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome

Introduction: Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is a rare clinical syndrome with a high mortality encompassing acute aortic dissection, intramural hematoma and penetrating atherosclerotic ulcer. Up to 38% of cases are misdiagnosed on first presentation. There is a large variation in use of computed tomography to rule out AAS. The Canadian clinical practice guideline for the diagnosis of AAS was developed in order to reduce the frequency of misdiagnoses. As part of the guideline, a clinical decision aid was developed to facilitate clinician decision-making based on practice recommendations. Our objective was to validate the sensitivity of this clinical decision aid. Methods: Our validation cohort was recruited from a retrospective review of all cases of AAS diagnosed at three tertiary care emergency departments and one cardiac referral center from 2002-2019. Inclusion criteria: >18 years old, non-traumatic, symptoms <14 days and AAS confirmed on computed tomography, transesophageal echocardiography, intraoperatively or postmortem. The clinical decision aid assigns an overall score of 0-7 based on high risk pain features, risk factors, physical examination and clinical suspicion. Sensitivity with 95% confidence intervals are reported. Based on a national survey, a miss rate of <1% was predefined for the validation threshold. Results: Data was collected from 2002-2019 yielding 222 cases of AAS (mean age of 65 (SD 14.1) and 66.7% male). Kappa for data abstraction was 0.9. Of the 222 cases of AAS (type A = 125, type B = 95, IMH = 2), 35 (15.7%) were missed on initial assessment. Patients were risk stratified into low (score = 0, 2 (0.9%)) moderate (score = 1, 42 (18.9%)) and high risk (score ≥2,178 (80.2%)) groups. A score ≥1 had a sensitivity of 99.1% (95% CI 96.8-99.9%) in the detection of AAS. The clinical decision aid missed 0.9% (95% CI 0.3-3%) of cases. Conclusion: The Canadian clinical practice guideline's AAS clinical decision aid is a highly sensitive tool that uses readily available clinical information. Although the miss rate was <1%, the 95% confidence intervals crossed the predefined threshold. Further validation is needed in a larger population to ensure the miss rate is below an acceptable level.

scholarly journals P096: Prospective pilot implementation of a clinical decision aid for acute aortic syndrome

CJEM ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (S1) ◽  
pp. S98
Author(s):  
R. Ohle ◽  
N. Fortino ◽  
O. Montpellier ◽  
M. Ludgate ◽  
S. McIsaac ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Length Of Stay ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome ◽  
Pilot Implementation ◽  
Test Probability ◽  
D Dimer

Introduction: The RAPID RIP clinical decision aid was developed to identify patients at high-risk for acute aortic syndrome (AAS) who require investigations. It stratifies patients into low (no further testing) intermediate (D-dimer if no alternative diagnosis) and High risk (Computed tomography (CT) aorta). Our objectives were to assess its impact on: a) Documentation of high risk features/pre test probability for AAS b) D-dimers ordered c) CT ordered and d) Emergency department length of stay. Methods: We conducted a prospective pilot before/after study at a single tertiary-care emergency department between August and September 2018. Consecutive alert adults with chest, abdominal, flank, back pain or stroke like symptoms were included. Patients with pain &gt;14 days or secondary to trauma were excluded. Results: We enrolled 1,340 patients, 656 before and 684 after implementation, including 0 AAS. Documentation of pre test probability assessment increased (0% to 3%, p &lt; 0.009) after implementation. The proportion who had D-dimer performed increased (5.8% to 9.2% (p &lt; 0.2), while the number of CT to rule out AAS remained stable (0.59% versus 0.58%; p = 0.60). The mean length of ED stay was stable (2.31+/−2.0 to 2.28+/−1.5 hours; p = 0.45) and slightly decreased in those with pre test probability documented (2.1+/−1.4 p &lt; 0.09). The specificity of the decision aid for CT was 100%( 95%CI 71.5- 100%). If it were applied to all patients with high-risk clinical features of AAS the specificity would be 92.6% (95%CI 90.1-94.6%). Conclusion: Implementation of the RAPID RIP increased documentation of important high-risk features for AAS. The RAPID RIP strategy increased use of D-dimer without increasing the number of CT and had a trend towards decreased length of stay.

National survey of emergency physicians on the risk stratification and acceptable miss rate of acute aortic syndrome

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 309-312
Author(s):  
Robert Ohle ◽  
Sarah McIsaac ◽  
Justin Yan ◽  
Krishan Yadav ◽  
Debra Eagles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Risk Stratification ◽  
National Survey ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Electronic Mail ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome ◽  
Emergency Physicians ◽  
Canadian Association ◽  
Academic Teaching Hospital

ABSTRACTObjectivesOne in four cases of acute aortic syndrome are missed. This national survey examined Canadian Emergency physicians’ opinion on risk stratification, the need for a clinical decision aid to risk stratify patients, and the required sensitivity of such a tool.MethodsWe surveyed 1,556 members of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians. We used a modified Dillman technique with a prenotification email and up to three survey attempts using electronic mail. Physicians were asked 21 questions about demographics, importance of certain high-risk features, investigation options, threshold for investigation, and if a clinical decision tool is requiredResultsWe had a response rate of 32%. Respondents were 66% male, and 49% practicing >10 years, with 59% in an academic teaching hospital. A total of 93% reported a need for a clinical decision aid to risk stratify for acute aortic syndrome. A total of 99.6% of physicians were pragmatic accepting a non-zero miss-rate, two-thirds accepting <1%, and the remaining accepting a higher miss-rate.ConclusionsOur national survey determined that emergency physicians would use a highly sensitive clinical decision aid to determine which patients are at low, medium, or high-risk for acute aortic syndrome. The majority of clinicians have a low threshold (<1%) for investigating for acute aortic syndrome, but accept that a zero miss-rate is not feasible.

scholarly journals P114: Barriers and facilitators affecting implementation of a decision aid for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome: a qualitative study

CJEM ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (S1) ◽  
pp. S106-S106
Author(s):  
C. Dmitriew ◽  
R. Ohle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Resource Use ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome ◽  
D Dimer

Introduction: Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS were developed in order to reduce the frequency of misdiagnoses and number of diagnostic tests. As part of the guidelines, a clinical decision aid was developed in order to facilitate clinician decision-making based on practice recommendations. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians to implementation of the decision aid. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with emergency room physicians working at 5 sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting ED physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators affecting the probability of decision aid uptake and accurate application of the tool. Two independent raters coded interview transcripts using an integrative approach to theme identification, combining an inductive approach to identification of themes within an organizing framework (Theoretical Domains Framework), discrepancies in coding were resolved through discussion until consensus was reached. Results: A majority of interviewees anticipated that the decision aid would support clinical decision making and risk stratification while reducing resource use and missed diagnoses. Facilitators identified included validation and publication of the guidelines as well as adoption by peers. Barriers to implementation and application of the tool included the fact that the use of D-dimer and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. Furthermore, scoring components were, at times, out of alignment with clinician practices and understanding of risk factors. The complexity of the decision aid was also identified as a potential barrier to accurate use. Conclusion: Physicians were amenable to using the AAS decision aid to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use, particularly within rural contexts. Key barriers identified included the complexity of scoring and inclusion criteria, and the variable acceptance of D-dimer among clinicians. These barriers should be addressed prior to implementation of the decision aid during validation studies of the clinical practice guidelines.

scholarly journals Impact of a Standardized Treatment Guideline for Pediatric Iatrogenic Opioid Dependence: A Quality Improvement Initiative

2016 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 54-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rima Abdouni ◽  
Teri Reyburn-Orne ◽  
Tarek H. Youssef ◽  
Imad Y. Haddad ◽  
Richard D. Gerkin
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Opioid Dependence ◽  
Phase 1 ◽  
Tertiary Care ◽  
Treatment Guideline ◽  
Quality Improvement Initiative ◽  
Phase 2 ◽  
Baseline Phase

OBJECTIVES: To determine whether utilization of a hospital-based clinical practice guideline for the care of pediatric iatrogenic opioid dependence (IOD) would promote a decrease in opioid exposure and improve management of opioid abstinence syndrome (AS). METHODS: This study is a retrospective chart review of critically ill patients from a tertiary care children's hospital. Inclusion criteria included mechanically ventilated patients up to 18 years of age who received continuous opioid infusions for at least 7 days and any length of methadone administration. Data on IOD patients from January 2005 to June 2010 was divided into 3 periods: baseline, phase 1, and phase 2. Primary outcome was decrease in opioid exposure, measured by methadone duration of use and any additional opioid bolus doses used in AS management. Documentation of additional opioid bolus doses was regarded as a surrogate measure of AS. Secondary outcomes included total cumulative fentanyl dose, continuous fentanyl infusion duration of use, and hospital and pediatric intensive care unit length of stay. RESULTS: There was a significant decrease in methadone duration of use in IOD patients from 15.3 ± 8.7 days at baseline to 9.5 ± 3.7 days during phase 1 (p = 0.002), to 8.1 ± 3.7 days on phase 2 (reduction not significant, p = 0.106) of this evaluation. Additional opioid bolus doses were significantly lower from baseline to phase 1 (5.5 ± 5.1 vs. 1.8 ± 2.3, p = 0.001) and from phase 1 to phase 2 (1.8 ± 2.3 vs. 0.2 ± 1.5, p = 0.003). For the remaining outcomes, differences were not observed among the evaluation periods, except for the total cumulative fentanyl dose, which was reduced from 2.8 ± 3.7 mg/kg at baseline to 1 ± 1 mg/kg only during phase 1 (p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: Introduction of a standardized, hospital-based clinical practice guideline for children with IOD reduced the length of exposure to opioids and improved opioid AS management.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators affecting implementation of the Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of acute aortic syndrome

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Caitlin Dmitriew ◽  
Robert Ohle
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome ◽  
Potential Barriers

Abstract Background Acute aortic syndrome (AAS) is an uncommon, life-threatening emergency that is frequently misdiagnosed. The 2020 Canadian clinical practice guidelines for the diagnosis of AAS incorporate all available evidence into four key recommendations. In order to facilitate the implementation of these recommendations, a clinical decision aid was created. The objective of this study was to identify barriers and facilitators among physicians prior to implementation of the guideline recommendations in a multicentre step wedge cluster randomized control trial. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with nine emergency room physicians working at five sites distributed between urban academic and rural settings. We used purposive sampling, contacting physicians until data saturation was reached. Interview questions were designed to understand potential barriers and facilitators to guideline recommendation uptake and use. Responses were analysed according to the Theoretical Domains Framework, and overarching themes describing these barriers and facilitators were identified. Results Two themes and six subthemes encompassing 13 theoretical domains were identified. These included clinical decision-making support, awareness of the evidence, social factors, expected consequences, ability of physicians to acquire the necessary data and ease of use. A majority of interviewees anticipated that the guideline recommendations would support clinical decision making and more effectively risk-stratify patients. Other facilitators included endorsement of the guidelines by professional organizations and peers. Barriers to implementation include the fact that laboratory testing and knowledge of the rationale for its use in the investigation of AAS were not widespread. The complexity of the clinical decision aid and concerns about test specificity were also identified as potential barriers to use. Conclusion Physicians were amenable to using the AAS guideline recommendations to support clinical decision-making and to reduce resource use. A structured intervention should be developed to address the identified barriers and leverage the facilitators in order to ensure successful implementation. Our findings may have implications for the implementation of other guidelines used in emergency departments.

scholarly journals Diagnosing acute aortic syndrome: a Canadian clinical practice guideline

2020 ◽  
Vol 192 (29) ◽  
pp. E832-E843
Author(s):  
Robert Ohle ◽  
Justin W. Yan ◽  
Krishan Yadav ◽  
Alexis Cournoyer ◽  
David W. Savage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Acute Aortic Syndrome

scholarly journals Diagnostic Evaluation and Management of Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension: A Clinical Practice Guideline

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 301-334 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sanjay Mehta ◽  
Doug Helmersen ◽  
Steeve Provencher ◽  
Naushad Hirani ◽  
Fraser D Rubens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Pulmonary Hypertension ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guideline ◽  
Computed Tomography Angiography ◽  
Practice Guideline ◽  
Chronic Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension ◽  
Pulmonary Endarterectomy ◽  
Thromboembolic Pulmonary Hypertension ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary embolism is a common condition. Some patients subsequently develop chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH). Many care gaps exist in the diagnosis and management of CTEPH patients including lack of awareness, incomplete diagnostic assessment, and inconsistent use of surgical and medical therapies.METHODS: A representative interdisciplinary panel of medical experts undertook a formal clinical practice guideline development process. A total of 20 key clinical issues were defined according to the patient population, intervention, comparator, outcome (PICO) approach. The panel performed an evidence-based, systematic, literature review, assessed and graded the relevant evidence, and made 26 recommendations.RESULTS: Asymptomatic patients postpulmonary embolism should not be screened for CTEPH. In patients with pulmonary hypertension, the possibility of CTEPH should be routinely evaluated with initial ventilation/ perfusion lung scanning, not computed tomography angiography. Pulmonary endarterectomy surgery is the treatment of choice in patients with surgically accessible CTEPH, and may also be effective in CTEPH patients with disease in more ‘distal’ pulmonary arteries. The anatomical extent of CTEPH for surgical pulmonary endarterectomy is best assessed by contrast pulmonary angiography, although positive computed tomography angiography may be acceptable. Novel medications indicated for the treatment of pulmonary hypertension may be effective for selected CTEPH patients.CONCLUSIONS: The present guideline requires formal dissemination to relevant target user groups, the development of tools for implementation into routine clinical practice and formal evaluation of the impact of the guideline on the quality of care of CTEPH patients. Moreover, the guideline will be updated periodically to reflect new evidence or clinical approaches.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document