Diane Sliwka, MD

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively affect patients’ experience of care. This column highlights key takeaways from the SHM track of the upcoming 2017 Cleveland Clinic Patient Experience Empathy and Innovation Summit, May 22-24. Three hospitalist leaders describe their approach to leading the design of the inpatient experience.

What we say and do, and why

Like many forms of care improvement, we have found that health care providers and patients alike engage most proactively when they are directly involved in codesigning an approach or intervention for improving the experience of care. Here are some examples of how hospitalists can be effective leaders in cocreating the inpatient experience with patients and interdisciplinary colleagues.

Dr. Diane Sliwka: Design principles and systems improvement. Inspiring and sustaining effective improvement in patient experience and the work experience of the care team warrants rethinking of how we design our leadership, goals, and engagement of the people doing the work. Deliberate application of several principles has transformed improvement from being “another thing we have to do” to “the effective and engaging way we do things.” Effective improvement design has included visibility walls, streamlined goals and targets, access to real-time data, dyad leadership, huddles, and executive leader rounding. Through these methods, we nurture a culture of support for – and problem solving by – the people doing the work.

Dr. Patrick Kneeland: User-centered design retreats. We have implemented experience cocreation through user-centered design workshops that bring together patient voices, nurses, physicians, case managers, social workers, and pharmacists from a specific inpatient unit. Over half- or full-day sessions, the interdisciplinary team follows a facilitated “design thinking” approach to brainstorm, prototype, and refine new ideas. The outputs are brought back to the unit for implementation and ongoing refinement. Not only do innovative ideas emerge for enhancing the experience of care for both patients and providers, but there is also a measurable impact on unit culture and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Dr. Rob Hoffman: Partnering with patient and family advisers. Working in close partnership with patient and family advisers (PFAs), we redesigned and implemented interdisciplinary bedside rounding in a way that puts the patient and family at the center of the care team. A multidisciplinary group including physicians, APPs, case managers, pharmacists, and PFAs created daily “care team visits” that bring, at a minimum, the nurse, provider and case manager to the beside daily. Key concepts we learned from our PFAs include having the nurse initiate the visit, minimizing the number of participants, clear introductions every time and focusing explicitly on what is most important to the patient that day. Our PFAs also actively participated in our training sessions for nurses and providers. Their stories and feedback at these trainings motivated attendees and helped everyone understand “why” we bring our conversations to the bedside. We have seen significant improvements in provider and nurse satisfaction with collaboration and unit level decision making and trends toward improved patient satisfaction with communication and teamwork.
 

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience at University of California, San Francisco, Health; Dr. Kneeland is medical director for patient and provider experience at University of Colorado, Aurora, Hospital; Dr. Hoffman is medical director for patient relations at University of Wisconsin-Madison, Health.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively affect patients’ experience of care. This column highlights key takeaways from the SHM track of the upcoming 2017 Cleveland Clinic Patient Experience Empathy and Innovation Summit, May 22-24. Three hospitalist leaders describe their approach to leading the design of the inpatient experience.

What we say and do, and why

Like many forms of care improvement, we have found that health care providers and patients alike engage most proactively when they are directly involved in codesigning an approach or intervention for improving the experience of care. Here are some examples of how hospitalists can be effective leaders in cocreating the inpatient experience with patients and interdisciplinary colleagues.

Dr. Diane Sliwka: Design principles and systems improvement. Inspiring and sustaining effective improvement in patient experience and the work experience of the care team warrants rethinking of how we design our leadership, goals, and engagement of the people doing the work. Deliberate application of several principles has transformed improvement from being “another thing we have to do” to “the effective and engaging way we do things.” Effective improvement design has included visibility walls, streamlined goals and targets, access to real-time data, dyad leadership, huddles, and executive leader rounding. Through these methods, we nurture a culture of support for – and problem solving by – the people doing the work.

Dr. Patrick Kneeland: User-centered design retreats. We have implemented experience cocreation through user-centered design workshops that bring together patient voices, nurses, physicians, case managers, social workers, and pharmacists from a specific inpatient unit. Over half- or full-day sessions, the interdisciplinary team follows a facilitated “design thinking” approach to brainstorm, prototype, and refine new ideas. The outputs are brought back to the unit for implementation and ongoing refinement. Not only do innovative ideas emerge for enhancing the experience of care for both patients and providers, but there is also a measurable impact on unit culture and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Dr. Rob Hoffman: Partnering with patient and family advisers. Working in close partnership with patient and family advisers (PFAs), we redesigned and implemented interdisciplinary bedside rounding in a way that puts the patient and family at the center of the care team. A multidisciplinary group including physicians, APPs, case managers, pharmacists, and PFAs created daily “care team visits” that bring, at a minimum, the nurse, provider and case manager to the beside daily. Key concepts we learned from our PFAs include having the nurse initiate the visit, minimizing the number of participants, clear introductions every time and focusing explicitly on what is most important to the patient that day. Our PFAs also actively participated in our training sessions for nurses and providers. Their stories and feedback at these trainings motivated attendees and helped everyone understand “why” we bring our conversations to the bedside. We have seen significant improvements in provider and nurse satisfaction with collaboration and unit level decision making and trends toward improved patient satisfaction with communication and teamwork.
 

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience at University of California, San Francisco, Health; Dr. Kneeland is medical director for patient and provider experience at University of Colorado, Aurora, Hospital; Dr. Hoffman is medical director for patient relations at University of Wisconsin-Madison, Health.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively affect patients’ experience of care. This column highlights key takeaways from the SHM track of the upcoming 2017 Cleveland Clinic Patient Experience Empathy and Innovation Summit, May 22-24. Three hospitalist leaders describe their approach to leading the design of the inpatient experience.

What we say and do, and why

Like many forms of care improvement, we have found that health care providers and patients alike engage most proactively when they are directly involved in codesigning an approach or intervention for improving the experience of care. Here are some examples of how hospitalists can be effective leaders in cocreating the inpatient experience with patients and interdisciplinary colleagues.

Dr. Diane Sliwka: Design principles and systems improvement. Inspiring and sustaining effective improvement in patient experience and the work experience of the care team warrants rethinking of how we design our leadership, goals, and engagement of the people doing the work. Deliberate application of several principles has transformed improvement from being “another thing we have to do” to “the effective and engaging way we do things.” Effective improvement design has included visibility walls, streamlined goals and targets, access to real-time data, dyad leadership, huddles, and executive leader rounding. Through these methods, we nurture a culture of support for – and problem solving by – the people doing the work.

Dr. Patrick Kneeland: User-centered design retreats. We have implemented experience cocreation through user-centered design workshops that bring together patient voices, nurses, physicians, case managers, social workers, and pharmacists from a specific inpatient unit. Over half- or full-day sessions, the interdisciplinary team follows a facilitated “design thinking” approach to brainstorm, prototype, and refine new ideas. The outputs are brought back to the unit for implementation and ongoing refinement. Not only do innovative ideas emerge for enhancing the experience of care for both patients and providers, but there is also a measurable impact on unit culture and interdisciplinary collaboration.

Dr. Rob Hoffman: Partnering with patient and family advisers. Working in close partnership with patient and family advisers (PFAs), we redesigned and implemented interdisciplinary bedside rounding in a way that puts the patient and family at the center of the care team. A multidisciplinary group including physicians, APPs, case managers, pharmacists, and PFAs created daily “care team visits” that bring, at a minimum, the nurse, provider and case manager to the beside daily. Key concepts we learned from our PFAs include having the nurse initiate the visit, minimizing the number of participants, clear introductions every time and focusing explicitly on what is most important to the patient that day. Our PFAs also actively participated in our training sessions for nurses and providers. Their stories and feedback at these trainings motivated attendees and helped everyone understand “why” we bring our conversations to the bedside. We have seen significant improvements in provider and nurse satisfaction with collaboration and unit level decision making and trends toward improved patient satisfaction with communication and teamwork.
 

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience at University of California, San Francisco, Health; Dr. Kneeland is medical director for patient and provider experience at University of Colorado, Aurora, Hospital; Dr. Hoffman is medical director for patient relations at University of Wisconsin-Madison, Health.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

Read more from the “Everything We Say and Do” series.

What I Say and Do

Solicit a patient’s agenda and use active listening.

Why I Do It

The literature shows that, in most cases, doctors interrupt within 18 to 23 seconds and that when we interrupt, patients often never get back to what they were saying, the course of their story changes, and our diagnostic accuracy decreases. I also do it because I learn things that I wouldn’t otherwise know, and my patients feel heard and treated with respect. Listening has a healing effect, and in medicine, it can be equally if not more therapeutic than the medicines and clinical care we provide. I find that it helps me to be a more effective doctor, one who is helping my patient in the way that is most meaningful and helpful to them. It is very easy to navigate an encounter from the physician point of view and to make assumptions about what people want and need from me, but in reality, what is most important to me is not always what is most important to them.

Allowing patients to tell me what is important shows them respect and also sets me up for success as I am more likely to know and meet their needs. Doing this up front saves time by preventing the “doorknob” questions on the way out.  The human connection that follows keeps me connected to my purpose as a doctor. People often worry that listening will take too much time, but we know from the literature that most patients will talk for no more than 90 seconds. It’s really a very short amount of time for a gold mine of information.

How I Do It

Before I jump into my agenda, I make sure to know what is on the patient’s and family’s mind. What is most important to them to address? Once we have agreed on what we will be discussing or doing with our time in a way that includes both what I and the patient/family find important, I start by asking the patient to tell me everything about the first item at hand. I do not interrupt by asking questions, making comments, or “fixing.” I approach them with authentic curiosity, encouraging more without directing what they say.

I start with, “I’m here to talk to you about _____, but first, can you tell me what you’d like to make sure we talk about today?” Or, “Tell me a list of things that you’d like to make sure we talk about today.”

I follow that with, “What else?” until there is nothing else. Once we have negotiated what we will discuss, I say, “Tell me all about _______.” I do not interrupt or think about my response while I am listening. My only response is to use nonverbal continuers (“Uh huh,” “mmmm”), reflections (“That sounds really hard”), verbal continuers (“Tell me more”), empathic statements (“I can see why you would feel that way”), and body language that shows I am with them (sitting at eye level, facing them, looking at them rather than at my phone, pager or a computer screen.)

 

All of this happens before I jump into any of my own focused or clarifying questions.

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience, medical director of the Goldman Medical Service, and associate clinical professor of medicine in the Division of Hospital Medicine at the UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco.

Table 1.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

Read more from the “Everything We Say and Do” series.

What I Say and Do

Solicit a patient’s agenda and use active listening.

Why I Do It

The literature shows that, in most cases, doctors interrupt within 18 to 23 seconds and that when we interrupt, patients often never get back to what they were saying, the course of their story changes, and our diagnostic accuracy decreases. I also do it because I learn things that I wouldn’t otherwise know, and my patients feel heard and treated with respect. Listening has a healing effect, and in medicine, it can be equally if not more therapeutic than the medicines and clinical care we provide. I find that it helps me to be a more effective doctor, one who is helping my patient in the way that is most meaningful and helpful to them. It is very easy to navigate an encounter from the physician point of view and to make assumptions about what people want and need from me, but in reality, what is most important to me is not always what is most important to them.

Allowing patients to tell me what is important shows them respect and also sets me up for success as I am more likely to know and meet their needs. Doing this up front saves time by preventing the “doorknob” questions on the way out.  The human connection that follows keeps me connected to my purpose as a doctor. People often worry that listening will take too much time, but we know from the literature that most patients will talk for no more than 90 seconds. It’s really a very short amount of time for a gold mine of information.

How I Do It

Before I jump into my agenda, I make sure to know what is on the patient’s and family’s mind. What is most important to them to address? Once we have agreed on what we will be discussing or doing with our time in a way that includes both what I and the patient/family find important, I start by asking the patient to tell me everything about the first item at hand. I do not interrupt by asking questions, making comments, or “fixing.” I approach them with authentic curiosity, encouraging more without directing what they say.

I start with, “I’m here to talk to you about _____, but first, can you tell me what you’d like to make sure we talk about today?” Or, “Tell me a list of things that you’d like to make sure we talk about today.”

I follow that with, “What else?” until there is nothing else. Once we have negotiated what we will discuss, I say, “Tell me all about _______.” I do not interrupt or think about my response while I am listening. My only response is to use nonverbal continuers (“Uh huh,” “mmmm”), reflections (“That sounds really hard”), verbal continuers (“Tell me more”), empathic statements (“I can see why you would feel that way”), and body language that shows I am with them (sitting at eye level, facing them, looking at them rather than at my phone, pager or a computer screen.)

 

All of this happens before I jump into any of my own focused or clarifying questions.

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience, medical director of the Goldman Medical Service, and associate clinical professor of medicine in the Division of Hospital Medicine at the UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco.

Table 1.

Editor’s note: “Everything We Say and Do” is an informational series developed by SHM’s Patient Experience Committee to provide readers with thoughtful and actionable communication tactics that have great potential to positively impact patients’ experience of care. Each article will focus on how the contributor applies one ormore of the “key communication” tactics in practice to maintain provider accountability for “Everything we say and do that affects our patients’ thoughts, feelings and well-being.”

Read more from the “Everything We Say and Do” series.

What I Say and Do

Solicit a patient’s agenda and use active listening.

Why I Do It

The literature shows that, in most cases, doctors interrupt within 18 to 23 seconds and that when we interrupt, patients often never get back to what they were saying, the course of their story changes, and our diagnostic accuracy decreases. I also do it because I learn things that I wouldn’t otherwise know, and my patients feel heard and treated with respect. Listening has a healing effect, and in medicine, it can be equally if not more therapeutic than the medicines and clinical care we provide. I find that it helps me to be a more effective doctor, one who is helping my patient in the way that is most meaningful and helpful to them. It is very easy to navigate an encounter from the physician point of view and to make assumptions about what people want and need from me, but in reality, what is most important to me is not always what is most important to them.

Allowing patients to tell me what is important shows them respect and also sets me up for success as I am more likely to know and meet their needs. Doing this up front saves time by preventing the “doorknob” questions on the way out.  The human connection that follows keeps me connected to my purpose as a doctor. People often worry that listening will take too much time, but we know from the literature that most patients will talk for no more than 90 seconds. It’s really a very short amount of time for a gold mine of information.

How I Do It

Before I jump into my agenda, I make sure to know what is on the patient’s and family’s mind. What is most important to them to address? Once we have agreed on what we will be discussing or doing with our time in a way that includes both what I and the patient/family find important, I start by asking the patient to tell me everything about the first item at hand. I do not interrupt by asking questions, making comments, or “fixing.” I approach them with authentic curiosity, encouraging more without directing what they say.

I start with, “I’m here to talk to you about _____, but first, can you tell me what you’d like to make sure we talk about today?” Or, “Tell me a list of things that you’d like to make sure we talk about today.”

I follow that with, “What else?” until there is nothing else. Once we have negotiated what we will discuss, I say, “Tell me all about _______.” I do not interrupt or think about my response while I am listening. My only response is to use nonverbal continuers (“Uh huh,” “mmmm”), reflections (“That sounds really hard”), verbal continuers (“Tell me more”), empathic statements (“I can see why you would feel that way”), and body language that shows I am with them (sitting at eye level, facing them, looking at them rather than at my phone, pager or a computer screen.)

 

All of this happens before I jump into any of my own focused or clarifying questions.

Dr. Sliwka is medical director of patient and provider experience, medical director of the Goldman Medical Service, and associate clinical professor of medicine in the Division of Hospital Medicine at the UCSF Medical Center in San Francisco.

Table 1.

Literature at a Glance

A guide to this month’s studies.

• Carotid stenting is equivalent to endarterectomy in carotid artery stenosis.
• Idiopathic ventricular fibrillation is associated with early repolarization.
• Aggressive LDL and blood pressure management may benefit diabetic patients.
• Treatment of hypertension in patients older than age 80 improves outcomes.
• Length of stay predicts mortality in pulmonary embolism patients.
• Poor symptom control and lack of family support during end-of-life hospital stays.
• Potentially inappropriate medication use in hospitalized elders is common.
• Steroids may not help in pediatric meningitis.
• PCI and CABG may be equivalent in the treatment of left main disease.

Is Stenting or Endarterectomy Best for Carotid Artery Stenosis?

Background: Patients with moderate to severe symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and those with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis benefit from carotid endarterectomy. Carotid stenting may provide an alternative therapy, but the long-term protection against stroke compared with endarterectomy is unclear.

Study Design: Prospective randomized trial.

Setting: 29 centers in the United States.

Synopsis: This article reports the long-term (three years) follow-up of the SAPPHIRE trial, published in 2004, which compared carotid stenting to endarterectomy in patients at high surgical risk. In that trial, 334 patients randomized to either stenting or endarterectomy had similar outcomes at one year. Patients were followed for three years with death and major cardiovascular events as endpoints.

Rates of stroke at three years were approximately 10% with an overall death rate of approximately 20%. There was no difference between carotid stenting and endarterectomy with regards to death, stroke, or other cardiovascular outcome.

Notably, follow-up was not complete (78%), a specific type of stenting procedure was used, and the patient population was at high risk for surgical complications. Therefore, results may not be applicable in other centers or in other patient populations. Yet, this trial provides follow-up, long-term evidence that carotid stenting may be a viable alternative to endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Bottom line: Carotid stenting and endarterectomy had similar outcomes at three years in high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Citation: Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, et al. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1572-1579.

Is Early Repolarization on EKG Associated with Sudden Cardiac Arrest?

Background: Electrocardiographic early repolarization, defined as elevation of the QRS-ST junction of at least 0.1mV from baseline in the inferior or lateral leads (manifested as slurring or notching), occurs in 1% to 5% of patients. It is considered benign, but experimental studies have suggested it may be arrhythmogenic.

Study Design: Prospective case-control.

Setting: 22 international tertiary care centers.

Synopsis: Case subjects were less than 60 years of age and were resuscitated after ventricular fibrillation (VF) arrest ultimately deemed idiopathic. All had normal echocardiograms, no evidence of coronary artery disease, and no repolarization abnormalities (including Brugada and long-QT). Of 206 patients, 31% had early repolarization on EKG, versus only 5% in controls without heart disease. In case subjects with prior EKGs, early repolarization was proven to be pre-existing.

The mean magnitude of J-point elevation was 2 mm in cases versus 1.2 mm in controls, and in cases this magnitude increased during later episodes of arrhythmia. Electrophysiologic mapping showed that ectopy originated at sites concordant with the location of abnormal repolarization. During five years of follow-up, arrhythmic recurrence was twice as common in cases with early repolarization.

Although long-term observational studies of persons with early repolarization have shown a benign natural course, this study may change our approach to those with syncope or a family history of sudden death.

 

Bottom line: Early repolarization on EKG is associated with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation.

Citation: Haissaguerre M, Derval N, Sacher F, et al. Sudden cardiac arrest associated with early repolarization. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(19):2016-2023.

Does Aggressive Blood Pressure and LDL Treatment in Diabetics Affect Development of Subclinical Atherosclerosis?

Background: There is evidence to suggest more aggressive treatment of LDL cholesterol in patients with known coronary artery disease is beneficial and more aggressive blood pressure control can improve outcomes in some patient populations. However, it is unclear if patients with diabetes without cardiovascular disease would benefit from more aggressive LDL and systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment.

Study Design: Randomized, open-label, blinded-to-end point trial.

Setting: Four centers in Okla­homa, Arizona, and South Dakota.

Synopsis: Investigators studied 499 type 2 diabetic American Indian men with no history of cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to receive treatment to achieve aggressive (70 mg/dL and 115 mmHg) or standard (100 mg/dL and 130 mmHg) targets for their LDL cholesterol and SBP, respectively.

At three years, the aggressive group showed decreased carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and decreased left ventricular mass, whereas both IMT and left ventricular volume increased in the standard group. There were no differences in clinical cardiovascular events between the aggressive and standard group and both groups had lower-than-expected clinical events.

This study included no women and was limited to an American Indian population. Of note, there was an increase in adverse events related to blood pressure medications in the aggressive group. It also is unclear how the surrogates of cardiovascular disease or subclinical atherosclerosis relate to significant clinical outcomes.

Bottom line: More aggressive LDL and SBP treatment in diabetics without coronary disease decreased subclinical atherosclerosis but did not impact clinical outcomes.

Citation: Howard B, Roman M, Devereux R, et al. Effect of lower targets for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol on atherosclerosis in diabetes. JAMA. 2008;299(14):1678-1689.

Should We Treat Hypertension in Patients Older Than 80?

Background: There is debate about whether treatment of hypertension in the elderly is beneficial. Numerous studies suggest blood pressure control does less to prevent strokes in patients older than 80 years than for younger patients. Moreover, other evidence shows controlling blood pressure in elderly patients may result in an increase in mortality even if there was a decreased risk of stroke.

Study Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: 195 centers in 13 countries in Europe, China, Australasia, and North Africa.

Synopsis: This study evaluated 3,845 patients, age 80 or older, with a sustained systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 160 mmHg and randomized them to receive indapamide (sustained release) or placebo. Perindopril, or placebo, was added if necessary to achieve a target blood pressure of 150/80 mmHg. Patients who received the indapamide with or without the perindopril had lower blood pressure, lower rate of stroke, lower rate of heart failure, lower rate of death from a cardiovascular cause, and a 21% reduction in all-cause mortality (all statistically significant). There were very few adverse drug events and fewer adverse events overall in the treatment group.

Of note, exclusion criteria included a history of heart failure requiring anti-hypertensive medication, dementia, need for nursing care, an inability to stand or walk, and a creatinine more than 1.7 mg/dL. As well, the “target” SBP of 150 mmHg (which only half of the treatment group achieved) is still considered hypertensive according to the JNC 7 guidelines.

Bottom line: In some patients older than 80, treatment of hypertension may reduce the incidence of stroke, death from stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.

 

Citation: Beckett N, Peters R, Fletcher A, et al. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1887-1898.

What Is the Optimal Hospital LOS for Patients with PE?

Background: Though there are clear trends toward shorter hospital stays after pulmonary embolism (PE), especially with the introduction of low molecular weight heparin, the optimal timing of discharge and the effect of decreased length of stay (LOS) on post-discharge mortality are unknown. Furthermore, there is no risk stratification strategy used to identify low-risk patients with PE who can safely be discharged early or treated in the outpatient setting.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 186 acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania from January 2000 to November 2002.

Synopsis: Using a statewide database of 15,531 patients discharged with pulmonary embolism (PE), the authors sought to identify patient and hospital factors associated with LOS and assess whether LOS was associated with post-discharge mortality.

Findings indicate there is considerable variation in LOS for PE between and within hospitals in Pennsylvania. The median LOS for patients with PE was six days; patients with a LOS of four or fewer days had significantly higher post-discharge mortality than patients hospitalized five to eight days. More than half the patients discharged at four or fewer days were classified as high-risk, with Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) scores of III-V (3.1% to 24.5% risk of mortality at 30 days).

Although we cannot infer causation (i.e., early discharge=death), clinicians should be aware of the results and consider severity of illness (using PESI or other criteria) in the discharge decision in patients with PE. Future prognostic models and evidence-based criteria would be helpful to identify patients with PE who can be safely discharged early.

Bottom line: Physicians may inappropriately select patients with PE for early discharge who are at increased risk of complications.

Citation: Aujesky D, Stone RA, Kim S, et al. Length of hospital stay and post-discharge mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(7):706-712.

Do Patients Have a “Good Death” in the Hospital?

Background: Despite an increasing focus on providing appropriate end-of-life care, the majority of patients in developed countries die in the hospital. The circumstances and quality of care provided at the time of death are poorly described.

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: 613 departments in 200 French hospitals.

Synopsis: For 3,793 in-hospital deaths, the investigators surveyed the bedside nurses about the circumstances and details of the death. Twenty-three percent of the patients were admitted for end-of-life care, 29% had a malignancy, and 50% of patients were identified as terminally ill for three days prior to their death.

A family member or relative was present in only 25% of all deaths; 20% of patients were alone at the time of death. In the last few hours of life, up to 70% of patients had symptoms of respiratory distress, while only 44% received opiate analgesia. Only 35% of nurses were satisfied with the quality of death. Satisfaction increased with presence of family members and having written protocols for care at the end of life.

This large, multicenter study has limitations but provides a concerning snapshot of death in the hospital. Hospitalists should be aggressive about symptom control at the end of life as well as attempt to ensure patients are not alone at the time of death.

Bottom line: Many patients die in the hospital in some degree of respiratory distress and without family or friends at the bedside.

Citation: Ferrand E, Jabre P, Vincent-Genod C, et al. Circumstances of death in hospitalized patients and nurses’ perceptions. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):867-875.

 

How Common Is Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in the Hospital?

Background: Use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) in the elderly based on the Beers’ List is common in nursing homes, the emergency department (ED), and outpatient settings and is associated with adverse outcomes and hospitalization. Frequency of PIM use the inpatient setting has not been well studied.

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 384 U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: In this retrospective cohort study of 493,971 inpatients (older than 65) admitted with medical diagnoses to non-surgeons, PIM prescription was evaluated. Forty nine percent of all patients were prescribed at least one PIM, while 6% were prescribed three or more. In a multivariable model, physician specialty was associated with variation in high severity PIM (HSPIM) prescription. In comparison with internal medicine physicians, cardiologists (odds ratio [OR] 1.32) and pulmonologists (OR 1.10) were more likely to prescribe HSPIMs, while hospitalists (OR 0.90) and geriatricians (OR 0.60) were less likely. In addition, patient age older than 85 was associated with decreased HSPIM prescription (OR 0.59) compared with those younger than 85.

Compared with patients in the Midwest, patients in the South (OR 1.63) and West (OR 1.43) were more likely to prescribe HSPIMs, while those in the Northeast (OR 0.85) were less likely. Hospitals with geriatric services had less PIM use. The study couldn’t account for continuation of chronic medications and did not evaluate adverse outcomes from PIM prescribing.

Bottom line: PIM prescription to hospitalized geriatric patients is common and associated with provider and hospital characteristics.

Citation: Rothberg MB, Pekow PS, Liu F, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use in hospitalized elders. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:91-102:91-102.

Is There a Benefit to Corticosteroids When Treating Bacterial Meningitis in Children?

Background: The benefit of adjuvant corticosteroids in the treatment of bacterial meningitis in children in the developed world remains unclear; recent expert guidelines reflect this uncertainty.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Twenty-seven tertiary care hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Researchers examined 2,780 children with a primary diagnosis of bacterial meningitis discharged from 27 tertiary care centers in the U.S. from 2001-2006. Using a propensity analysis (to control for severity of illness), the study compared those who had received adjunctive corticosteroids with those who had not, with mortality and length of study (LOS) as primary outcomes.

The median age was nine months, 8.9% of children received corticosteroids, and the overall mortality rate was 4.2%. Adjuvent corticosteroids did not reduce mortality or LOS. The outcomes were unchanged in subgroup analyses.

Although limited by its retrospective design and lack of other outcome measures (e.g., hearing loss, neurological deficits), this study provides reasonable evidence that corticosteroid use in bacterial meningitis in children may not save lives or shorten LOS. Pediatric hospitalists may not want to routinely give steroids in this setting pending large randomized-controlled trials.

Bottom line: Adjunctive corticosteroids therapy in children with bacterial meningitis may not save lives or reduce LOS.

Citation: Mongelluzzo J, Mohamad Z, Ten Have TR, Shah SS. Corticosteroids and mortality in children with bacterial meningitis. JAMA. 2008;299(17):2048-2055.

Should Unprotected Left Main Disease Be Treated With PCI or CABG?

Background: The current standard of care for the treatment of left main coronary artery disease is coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). With the advent of drug-eluting stents, there is growing interest in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat left main disease.

Study Design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Twelve Korean cardiac centers.

Synopsis: From 2000 to 2006, patients with left main disease were treated with PCI or CABG at the discretion of the physician. Nearly 1,100 patients in each cohort were compared and evaluated for death and a composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Propensity-matching was employed to control for confounders.

 

In the overall cohort matched by propensity score, there was no significant difference in death or the composite outcome between the PCI and CABG groups after three years. Type of stent (bare metal vs. drug-eluting) did not affect the outcome. Rates of target-vessel revascularization were significantly higher in the group that received stents.

The results are limited by the observational nature and the need for propensity analysis and yet provide an intriguing result. The standard of care for treatment of left main disease remains CABG, but clinicians may be more comfortable treating with stents while we await randomized-controlled trials.

Bottom line: In this observational study, PCI and CABG had similar outcomes in patients with left main disease.

Citation: Seung KB, Park D, Kim Y, Lee S. Stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1781-1792.

Literature at a Glance

A guide to this month’s studies.

• Carotid stenting is equivalent to endarterectomy in carotid artery stenosis.
• Idiopathic ventricular fibrillation is associated with early repolarization.
• Aggressive LDL and blood pressure management may benefit diabetic patients.
• Treatment of hypertension in patients older than age 80 improves outcomes.
• Length of stay predicts mortality in pulmonary embolism patients.
• Poor symptom control and lack of family support during end-of-life hospital stays.
• Potentially inappropriate medication use in hospitalized elders is common.
• Steroids may not help in pediatric meningitis.
• PCI and CABG may be equivalent in the treatment of left main disease.

Is Stenting or Endarterectomy Best for Carotid Artery Stenosis?

Background: Patients with moderate to severe symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and those with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis benefit from carotid endarterectomy. Carotid stenting may provide an alternative therapy, but the long-term protection against stroke compared with endarterectomy is unclear.

Study Design: Prospective randomized trial.

Setting: 29 centers in the United States.

Synopsis: This article reports the long-term (three years) follow-up of the SAPPHIRE trial, published in 2004, which compared carotid stenting to endarterectomy in patients at high surgical risk. In that trial, 334 patients randomized to either stenting or endarterectomy had similar outcomes at one year. Patients were followed for three years with death and major cardiovascular events as endpoints.

Rates of stroke at three years were approximately 10% with an overall death rate of approximately 20%. There was no difference between carotid stenting and endarterectomy with regards to death, stroke, or other cardiovascular outcome.

Notably, follow-up was not complete (78%), a specific type of stenting procedure was used, and the patient population was at high risk for surgical complications. Therefore, results may not be applicable in other centers or in other patient populations. Yet, this trial provides follow-up, long-term evidence that carotid stenting may be a viable alternative to endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Bottom line: Carotid stenting and endarterectomy had similar outcomes at three years in high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Citation: Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, et al. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1572-1579.

Is Early Repolarization on EKG Associated with Sudden Cardiac Arrest?

Background: Electrocardiographic early repolarization, defined as elevation of the QRS-ST junction of at least 0.1mV from baseline in the inferior or lateral leads (manifested as slurring or notching), occurs in 1% to 5% of patients. It is considered benign, but experimental studies have suggested it may be arrhythmogenic.

Study Design: Prospective case-control.

Setting: 22 international tertiary care centers.

Synopsis: Case subjects were less than 60 years of age and were resuscitated after ventricular fibrillation (VF) arrest ultimately deemed idiopathic. All had normal echocardiograms, no evidence of coronary artery disease, and no repolarization abnormalities (including Brugada and long-QT). Of 206 patients, 31% had early repolarization on EKG, versus only 5% in controls without heart disease. In case subjects with prior EKGs, early repolarization was proven to be pre-existing.

The mean magnitude of J-point elevation was 2 mm in cases versus 1.2 mm in controls, and in cases this magnitude increased during later episodes of arrhythmia. Electrophysiologic mapping showed that ectopy originated at sites concordant with the location of abnormal repolarization. During five years of follow-up, arrhythmic recurrence was twice as common in cases with early repolarization.

Although long-term observational studies of persons with early repolarization have shown a benign natural course, this study may change our approach to those with syncope or a family history of sudden death.

 

Bottom line: Early repolarization on EKG is associated with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation.

Citation: Haissaguerre M, Derval N, Sacher F, et al. Sudden cardiac arrest associated with early repolarization. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(19):2016-2023.

Does Aggressive Blood Pressure and LDL Treatment in Diabetics Affect Development of Subclinical Atherosclerosis?

Background: There is evidence to suggest more aggressive treatment of LDL cholesterol in patients with known coronary artery disease is beneficial and more aggressive blood pressure control can improve outcomes in some patient populations. However, it is unclear if patients with diabetes without cardiovascular disease would benefit from more aggressive LDL and systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment.

Study Design: Randomized, open-label, blinded-to-end point trial.

Setting: Four centers in Okla­homa, Arizona, and South Dakota.

Synopsis: Investigators studied 499 type 2 diabetic American Indian men with no history of cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to receive treatment to achieve aggressive (70 mg/dL and 115 mmHg) or standard (100 mg/dL and 130 mmHg) targets for their LDL cholesterol and SBP, respectively.

At three years, the aggressive group showed decreased carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and decreased left ventricular mass, whereas both IMT and left ventricular volume increased in the standard group. There were no differences in clinical cardiovascular events between the aggressive and standard group and both groups had lower-than-expected clinical events.

This study included no women and was limited to an American Indian population. Of note, there was an increase in adverse events related to blood pressure medications in the aggressive group. It also is unclear how the surrogates of cardiovascular disease or subclinical atherosclerosis relate to significant clinical outcomes.

Bottom line: More aggressive LDL and SBP treatment in diabetics without coronary disease decreased subclinical atherosclerosis but did not impact clinical outcomes.

Citation: Howard B, Roman M, Devereux R, et al. Effect of lower targets for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol on atherosclerosis in diabetes. JAMA. 2008;299(14):1678-1689.

Should We Treat Hypertension in Patients Older Than 80?

Background: There is debate about whether treatment of hypertension in the elderly is beneficial. Numerous studies suggest blood pressure control does less to prevent strokes in patients older than 80 years than for younger patients. Moreover, other evidence shows controlling blood pressure in elderly patients may result in an increase in mortality even if there was a decreased risk of stroke.

Study Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: 195 centers in 13 countries in Europe, China, Australasia, and North Africa.

Synopsis: This study evaluated 3,845 patients, age 80 or older, with a sustained systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 160 mmHg and randomized them to receive indapamide (sustained release) or placebo. Perindopril, or placebo, was added if necessary to achieve a target blood pressure of 150/80 mmHg. Patients who received the indapamide with or without the perindopril had lower blood pressure, lower rate of stroke, lower rate of heart failure, lower rate of death from a cardiovascular cause, and a 21% reduction in all-cause mortality (all statistically significant). There were very few adverse drug events and fewer adverse events overall in the treatment group.

Of note, exclusion criteria included a history of heart failure requiring anti-hypertensive medication, dementia, need for nursing care, an inability to stand or walk, and a creatinine more than 1.7 mg/dL. As well, the “target” SBP of 150 mmHg (which only half of the treatment group achieved) is still considered hypertensive according to the JNC 7 guidelines.

Bottom line: In some patients older than 80, treatment of hypertension may reduce the incidence of stroke, death from stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.

 

Citation: Beckett N, Peters R, Fletcher A, et al. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1887-1898.

What Is the Optimal Hospital LOS for Patients with PE?

Background: Though there are clear trends toward shorter hospital stays after pulmonary embolism (PE), especially with the introduction of low molecular weight heparin, the optimal timing of discharge and the effect of decreased length of stay (LOS) on post-discharge mortality are unknown. Furthermore, there is no risk stratification strategy used to identify low-risk patients with PE who can safely be discharged early or treated in the outpatient setting.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 186 acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania from January 2000 to November 2002.

Synopsis: Using a statewide database of 15,531 patients discharged with pulmonary embolism (PE), the authors sought to identify patient and hospital factors associated with LOS and assess whether LOS was associated with post-discharge mortality.

Findings indicate there is considerable variation in LOS for PE between and within hospitals in Pennsylvania. The median LOS for patients with PE was six days; patients with a LOS of four or fewer days had significantly higher post-discharge mortality than patients hospitalized five to eight days. More than half the patients discharged at four or fewer days were classified as high-risk, with Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) scores of III-V (3.1% to 24.5% risk of mortality at 30 days).

Although we cannot infer causation (i.e., early discharge=death), clinicians should be aware of the results and consider severity of illness (using PESI or other criteria) in the discharge decision in patients with PE. Future prognostic models and evidence-based criteria would be helpful to identify patients with PE who can be safely discharged early.

Bottom line: Physicians may inappropriately select patients with PE for early discharge who are at increased risk of complications.

Citation: Aujesky D, Stone RA, Kim S, et al. Length of hospital stay and post-discharge mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(7):706-712.

Do Patients Have a “Good Death” in the Hospital?

Background: Despite an increasing focus on providing appropriate end-of-life care, the majority of patients in developed countries die in the hospital. The circumstances and quality of care provided at the time of death are poorly described.

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: 613 departments in 200 French hospitals.

Synopsis: For 3,793 in-hospital deaths, the investigators surveyed the bedside nurses about the circumstances and details of the death. Twenty-three percent of the patients were admitted for end-of-life care, 29% had a malignancy, and 50% of patients were identified as terminally ill for three days prior to their death.

A family member or relative was present in only 25% of all deaths; 20% of patients were alone at the time of death. In the last few hours of life, up to 70% of patients had symptoms of respiratory distress, while only 44% received opiate analgesia. Only 35% of nurses were satisfied with the quality of death. Satisfaction increased with presence of family members and having written protocols for care at the end of life.

This large, multicenter study has limitations but provides a concerning snapshot of death in the hospital. Hospitalists should be aggressive about symptom control at the end of life as well as attempt to ensure patients are not alone at the time of death.

Bottom line: Many patients die in the hospital in some degree of respiratory distress and without family or friends at the bedside.

Citation: Ferrand E, Jabre P, Vincent-Genod C, et al. Circumstances of death in hospitalized patients and nurses’ perceptions. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):867-875.

 

How Common Is Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in the Hospital?

Background: Use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) in the elderly based on the Beers’ List is common in nursing homes, the emergency department (ED), and outpatient settings and is associated with adverse outcomes and hospitalization. Frequency of PIM use the inpatient setting has not been well studied.

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 384 U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: In this retrospective cohort study of 493,971 inpatients (older than 65) admitted with medical diagnoses to non-surgeons, PIM prescription was evaluated. Forty nine percent of all patients were prescribed at least one PIM, while 6% were prescribed three or more. In a multivariable model, physician specialty was associated with variation in high severity PIM (HSPIM) prescription. In comparison with internal medicine physicians, cardiologists (odds ratio [OR] 1.32) and pulmonologists (OR 1.10) were more likely to prescribe HSPIMs, while hospitalists (OR 0.90) and geriatricians (OR 0.60) were less likely. In addition, patient age older than 85 was associated with decreased HSPIM prescription (OR 0.59) compared with those younger than 85.

Compared with patients in the Midwest, patients in the South (OR 1.63) and West (OR 1.43) were more likely to prescribe HSPIMs, while those in the Northeast (OR 0.85) were less likely. Hospitals with geriatric services had less PIM use. The study couldn’t account for continuation of chronic medications and did not evaluate adverse outcomes from PIM prescribing.

Bottom line: PIM prescription to hospitalized geriatric patients is common and associated with provider and hospital characteristics.

Citation: Rothberg MB, Pekow PS, Liu F, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use in hospitalized elders. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:91-102:91-102.

Is There a Benefit to Corticosteroids When Treating Bacterial Meningitis in Children?

Background: The benefit of adjuvant corticosteroids in the treatment of bacterial meningitis in children in the developed world remains unclear; recent expert guidelines reflect this uncertainty.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Twenty-seven tertiary care hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Researchers examined 2,780 children with a primary diagnosis of bacterial meningitis discharged from 27 tertiary care centers in the U.S. from 2001-2006. Using a propensity analysis (to control for severity of illness), the study compared those who had received adjunctive corticosteroids with those who had not, with mortality and length of study (LOS) as primary outcomes.

The median age was nine months, 8.9% of children received corticosteroids, and the overall mortality rate was 4.2%. Adjuvent corticosteroids did not reduce mortality or LOS. The outcomes were unchanged in subgroup analyses.

Although limited by its retrospective design and lack of other outcome measures (e.g., hearing loss, neurological deficits), this study provides reasonable evidence that corticosteroid use in bacterial meningitis in children may not save lives or shorten LOS. Pediatric hospitalists may not want to routinely give steroids in this setting pending large randomized-controlled trials.

Bottom line: Adjunctive corticosteroids therapy in children with bacterial meningitis may not save lives or reduce LOS.

Citation: Mongelluzzo J, Mohamad Z, Ten Have TR, Shah SS. Corticosteroids and mortality in children with bacterial meningitis. JAMA. 2008;299(17):2048-2055.

Should Unprotected Left Main Disease Be Treated With PCI or CABG?

Background: The current standard of care for the treatment of left main coronary artery disease is coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). With the advent of drug-eluting stents, there is growing interest in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat left main disease.

Study Design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Twelve Korean cardiac centers.

Synopsis: From 2000 to 2006, patients with left main disease were treated with PCI or CABG at the discretion of the physician. Nearly 1,100 patients in each cohort were compared and evaluated for death and a composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Propensity-matching was employed to control for confounders.

 

In the overall cohort matched by propensity score, there was no significant difference in death or the composite outcome between the PCI and CABG groups after three years. Type of stent (bare metal vs. drug-eluting) did not affect the outcome. Rates of target-vessel revascularization were significantly higher in the group that received stents.

The results are limited by the observational nature and the need for propensity analysis and yet provide an intriguing result. The standard of care for treatment of left main disease remains CABG, but clinicians may be more comfortable treating with stents while we await randomized-controlled trials.

Bottom line: In this observational study, PCI and CABG had similar outcomes in patients with left main disease.

Citation: Seung KB, Park D, Kim Y, Lee S. Stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1781-1792.

Literature at a Glance

A guide to this month’s studies.

• Carotid stenting is equivalent to endarterectomy in carotid artery stenosis.
• Idiopathic ventricular fibrillation is associated with early repolarization.
• Aggressive LDL and blood pressure management may benefit diabetic patients.
• Treatment of hypertension in patients older than age 80 improves outcomes.
• Length of stay predicts mortality in pulmonary embolism patients.
• Poor symptom control and lack of family support during end-of-life hospital stays.
• Potentially inappropriate medication use in hospitalized elders is common.
• Steroids may not help in pediatric meningitis.
• PCI and CABG may be equivalent in the treatment of left main disease.

Is Stenting or Endarterectomy Best for Carotid Artery Stenosis?

Background: Patients with moderate to severe symptomatic carotid artery stenosis and those with severe asymptomatic carotid stenosis benefit from carotid endarterectomy. Carotid stenting may provide an alternative therapy, but the long-term protection against stroke compared with endarterectomy is unclear.

Study Design: Prospective randomized trial.

Setting: 29 centers in the United States.

Synopsis: This article reports the long-term (three years) follow-up of the SAPPHIRE trial, published in 2004, which compared carotid stenting to endarterectomy in patients at high surgical risk. In that trial, 334 patients randomized to either stenting or endarterectomy had similar outcomes at one year. Patients were followed for three years with death and major cardiovascular events as endpoints.

Rates of stroke at three years were approximately 10% with an overall death rate of approximately 20%. There was no difference between carotid stenting and endarterectomy with regards to death, stroke, or other cardiovascular outcome.

Notably, follow-up was not complete (78%), a specific type of stenting procedure was used, and the patient population was at high risk for surgical complications. Therefore, results may not be applicable in other centers or in other patient populations. Yet, this trial provides follow-up, long-term evidence that carotid stenting may be a viable alternative to endarterectomy in patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Bottom line: Carotid stenting and endarterectomy had similar outcomes at three years in high-risk patients with carotid artery stenosis.

Citation: Gurm HS, Yadav JS, Fayad P, et al. Long-term results of carotid stenting versus endarterectomy in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1572-1579.

Is Early Repolarization on EKG Associated with Sudden Cardiac Arrest?

Background: Electrocardiographic early repolarization, defined as elevation of the QRS-ST junction of at least 0.1mV from baseline in the inferior or lateral leads (manifested as slurring or notching), occurs in 1% to 5% of patients. It is considered benign, but experimental studies have suggested it may be arrhythmogenic.

Study Design: Prospective case-control.

Setting: 22 international tertiary care centers.

Synopsis: Case subjects were less than 60 years of age and were resuscitated after ventricular fibrillation (VF) arrest ultimately deemed idiopathic. All had normal echocardiograms, no evidence of coronary artery disease, and no repolarization abnormalities (including Brugada and long-QT). Of 206 patients, 31% had early repolarization on EKG, versus only 5% in controls without heart disease. In case subjects with prior EKGs, early repolarization was proven to be pre-existing.

The mean magnitude of J-point elevation was 2 mm in cases versus 1.2 mm in controls, and in cases this magnitude increased during later episodes of arrhythmia. Electrophysiologic mapping showed that ectopy originated at sites concordant with the location of abnormal repolarization. During five years of follow-up, arrhythmic recurrence was twice as common in cases with early repolarization.

Although long-term observational studies of persons with early repolarization have shown a benign natural course, this study may change our approach to those with syncope or a family history of sudden death.

 

Bottom line: Early repolarization on EKG is associated with idiopathic ventricular fibrillation.

Citation: Haissaguerre M, Derval N, Sacher F, et al. Sudden cardiac arrest associated with early repolarization. N Engl J Med. 2008;358(19):2016-2023.

Does Aggressive Blood Pressure and LDL Treatment in Diabetics Affect Development of Subclinical Atherosclerosis?

Background: There is evidence to suggest more aggressive treatment of LDL cholesterol in patients with known coronary artery disease is beneficial and more aggressive blood pressure control can improve outcomes in some patient populations. However, it is unclear if patients with diabetes without cardiovascular disease would benefit from more aggressive LDL and systolic blood pressure (SBP) treatment.

Study Design: Randomized, open-label, blinded-to-end point trial.

Setting: Four centers in Okla­homa, Arizona, and South Dakota.

Synopsis: Investigators studied 499 type 2 diabetic American Indian men with no history of cardiovascular disease. Patients were randomized to receive treatment to achieve aggressive (70 mg/dL and 115 mmHg) or standard (100 mg/dL and 130 mmHg) targets for their LDL cholesterol and SBP, respectively.

At three years, the aggressive group showed decreased carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) and decreased left ventricular mass, whereas both IMT and left ventricular volume increased in the standard group. There were no differences in clinical cardiovascular events between the aggressive and standard group and both groups had lower-than-expected clinical events.

This study included no women and was limited to an American Indian population. Of note, there was an increase in adverse events related to blood pressure medications in the aggressive group. It also is unclear how the surrogates of cardiovascular disease or subclinical atherosclerosis relate to significant clinical outcomes.

Bottom line: More aggressive LDL and SBP treatment in diabetics without coronary disease decreased subclinical atherosclerosis but did not impact clinical outcomes.

Citation: Howard B, Roman M, Devereux R, et al. Effect of lower targets for blood pressure and LDL cholesterol on atherosclerosis in diabetes. JAMA. 2008;299(14):1678-1689.

Should We Treat Hypertension in Patients Older Than 80?

Background: There is debate about whether treatment of hypertension in the elderly is beneficial. Numerous studies suggest blood pressure control does less to prevent strokes in patients older than 80 years than for younger patients. Moreover, other evidence shows controlling blood pressure in elderly patients may result in an increase in mortality even if there was a decreased risk of stroke.

Study Design: Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Setting: 195 centers in 13 countries in Europe, China, Australasia, and North Africa.

Synopsis: This study evaluated 3,845 patients, age 80 or older, with a sustained systolic blood pressure (SBP) of 160 mmHg and randomized them to receive indapamide (sustained release) or placebo. Perindopril, or placebo, was added if necessary to achieve a target blood pressure of 150/80 mmHg. Patients who received the indapamide with or without the perindopril had lower blood pressure, lower rate of stroke, lower rate of heart failure, lower rate of death from a cardiovascular cause, and a 21% reduction in all-cause mortality (all statistically significant). There were very few adverse drug events and fewer adverse events overall in the treatment group.

Of note, exclusion criteria included a history of heart failure requiring anti-hypertensive medication, dementia, need for nursing care, an inability to stand or walk, and a creatinine more than 1.7 mg/dL. As well, the “target” SBP of 150 mmHg (which only half of the treatment group achieved) is still considered hypertensive according to the JNC 7 guidelines.

Bottom line: In some patients older than 80, treatment of hypertension may reduce the incidence of stroke, death from stroke, heart failure, and all-cause mortality.

 

Citation: Beckett N, Peters R, Fletcher A, et al. Treatment of hypertension in patients 80 years of age or older. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1887-1898.

What Is the Optimal Hospital LOS for Patients with PE?

Background: Though there are clear trends toward shorter hospital stays after pulmonary embolism (PE), especially with the introduction of low molecular weight heparin, the optimal timing of discharge and the effect of decreased length of stay (LOS) on post-discharge mortality are unknown. Furthermore, there is no risk stratification strategy used to identify low-risk patients with PE who can safely be discharged early or treated in the outpatient setting.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 186 acute care hospitals in Pennsylvania from January 2000 to November 2002.

Synopsis: Using a statewide database of 15,531 patients discharged with pulmonary embolism (PE), the authors sought to identify patient and hospital factors associated with LOS and assess whether LOS was associated with post-discharge mortality.

Findings indicate there is considerable variation in LOS for PE between and within hospitals in Pennsylvania. The median LOS for patients with PE was six days; patients with a LOS of four or fewer days had significantly higher post-discharge mortality than patients hospitalized five to eight days. More than half the patients discharged at four or fewer days were classified as high-risk, with Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) scores of III-V (3.1% to 24.5% risk of mortality at 30 days).

Although we cannot infer causation (i.e., early discharge=death), clinicians should be aware of the results and consider severity of illness (using PESI or other criteria) in the discharge decision in patients with PE. Future prognostic models and evidence-based criteria would be helpful to identify patients with PE who can be safely discharged early.

Bottom line: Physicians may inappropriately select patients with PE for early discharge who are at increased risk of complications.

Citation: Aujesky D, Stone RA, Kim S, et al. Length of hospital stay and post-discharge mortality in patients with pulmonary embolism. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(7):706-712.

Do Patients Have a “Good Death” in the Hospital?

Background: Despite an increasing focus on providing appropriate end-of-life care, the majority of patients in developed countries die in the hospital. The circumstances and quality of care provided at the time of death are poorly described.

Study Design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: 613 departments in 200 French hospitals.

Synopsis: For 3,793 in-hospital deaths, the investigators surveyed the bedside nurses about the circumstances and details of the death. Twenty-three percent of the patients were admitted for end-of-life care, 29% had a malignancy, and 50% of patients were identified as terminally ill for three days prior to their death.

A family member or relative was present in only 25% of all deaths; 20% of patients were alone at the time of death. In the last few hours of life, up to 70% of patients had symptoms of respiratory distress, while only 44% received opiate analgesia. Only 35% of nurses were satisfied with the quality of death. Satisfaction increased with presence of family members and having written protocols for care at the end of life.

This large, multicenter study has limitations but provides a concerning snapshot of death in the hospital. Hospitalists should be aggressive about symptom control at the end of life as well as attempt to ensure patients are not alone at the time of death.

Bottom line: Many patients die in the hospital in some degree of respiratory distress and without family or friends at the bedside.

Citation: Ferrand E, Jabre P, Vincent-Genod C, et al. Circumstances of death in hospitalized patients and nurses’ perceptions. Arch Intern Med. 2008;168(8):867-875.

 

How Common Is Potentially Inappropriate Medication Use in the Hospital?

Background: Use of potentially inappropriate medications (PIM) in the elderly based on the Beers’ List is common in nursing homes, the emergency department (ED), and outpatient settings and is associated with adverse outcomes and hospitalization. Frequency of PIM use the inpatient setting has not been well studied.

Study Design: A retrospective cohort study.

Setting: 384 U.S. hospitals.

Synopsis: In this retrospective cohort study of 493,971 inpatients (older than 65) admitted with medical diagnoses to non-surgeons, PIM prescription was evaluated. Forty nine percent of all patients were prescribed at least one PIM, while 6% were prescribed three or more. In a multivariable model, physician specialty was associated with variation in high severity PIM (HSPIM) prescription. In comparison with internal medicine physicians, cardiologists (odds ratio [OR] 1.32) and pulmonologists (OR 1.10) were more likely to prescribe HSPIMs, while hospitalists (OR 0.90) and geriatricians (OR 0.60) were less likely. In addition, patient age older than 85 was associated with decreased HSPIM prescription (OR 0.59) compared with those younger than 85.

Compared with patients in the Midwest, patients in the South (OR 1.63) and West (OR 1.43) were more likely to prescribe HSPIMs, while those in the Northeast (OR 0.85) were less likely. Hospitals with geriatric services had less PIM use. The study couldn’t account for continuation of chronic medications and did not evaluate adverse outcomes from PIM prescribing.

Bottom line: PIM prescription to hospitalized geriatric patients is common and associated with provider and hospital characteristics.

Citation: Rothberg MB, Pekow PS, Liu F, et al. Potentially inappropriate medication use in hospitalized elders. J Hosp Med. 2008;3:91-102:91-102.

Is There a Benefit to Corticosteroids When Treating Bacterial Meningitis in Children?

Background: The benefit of adjuvant corticosteroids in the treatment of bacterial meningitis in children in the developed world remains unclear; recent expert guidelines reflect this uncertainty.

Study Design: Retrospective cohort study.

Setting: Twenty-seven tertiary care hospitals in the United States.

Synopsis: Researchers examined 2,780 children with a primary diagnosis of bacterial meningitis discharged from 27 tertiary care centers in the U.S. from 2001-2006. Using a propensity analysis (to control for severity of illness), the study compared those who had received adjunctive corticosteroids with those who had not, with mortality and length of study (LOS) as primary outcomes.

The median age was nine months, 8.9% of children received corticosteroids, and the overall mortality rate was 4.2%. Adjuvent corticosteroids did not reduce mortality or LOS. The outcomes were unchanged in subgroup analyses.

Although limited by its retrospective design and lack of other outcome measures (e.g., hearing loss, neurological deficits), this study provides reasonable evidence that corticosteroid use in bacterial meningitis in children may not save lives or shorten LOS. Pediatric hospitalists may not want to routinely give steroids in this setting pending large randomized-controlled trials.

Bottom line: Adjunctive corticosteroids therapy in children with bacterial meningitis may not save lives or reduce LOS.

Citation: Mongelluzzo J, Mohamad Z, Ten Have TR, Shah SS. Corticosteroids and mortality in children with bacterial meningitis. JAMA. 2008;299(17):2048-2055.

Should Unprotected Left Main Disease Be Treated With PCI or CABG?

Background: The current standard of care for the treatment of left main coronary artery disease is coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). With the advent of drug-eluting stents, there is growing interest in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat left main disease.

Study Design: Prospective observational study.

Setting: Twelve Korean cardiac centers.

Synopsis: From 2000 to 2006, patients with left main disease were treated with PCI or CABG at the discretion of the physician. Nearly 1,100 patients in each cohort were compared and evaluated for death and a composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Propensity-matching was employed to control for confounders.

 

In the overall cohort matched by propensity score, there was no significant difference in death or the composite outcome between the PCI and CABG groups after three years. Type of stent (bare metal vs. drug-eluting) did not affect the outcome. Rates of target-vessel revascularization were significantly higher in the group that received stents.

The results are limited by the observational nature and the need for propensity analysis and yet provide an intriguing result. The standard of care for treatment of left main disease remains CABG, but clinicians may be more comfortable treating with stents while we await randomized-controlled trials.

Bottom line: In this observational study, PCI and CABG had similar outcomes in patients with left main disease.

Citation: Seung KB, Park D, Kim Y, Lee S. Stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2008;358:1781-1792.

Within the next few months, many of you will have a new job as an attending hospitalist. As daunting as that may seem, now is the time to think about what you can do to ensure a smooth transition and successful beginning to your career.

Although residency prepared you to face the medical challenges ahead, here are 10 pointers that may help as you move to the next stage of your professional life.

1) Familiarize yourself with the licensing/credentialing process: Do not underestimate the amount of time it takes to get this paperwork approved—up to six months in some cases. Many new hires’ first days on the job are delayed because they didn’t complete this step. Check with state licensing boards for special requirements unique to that state. Also, every hospital has its own gauntlet of infectious disease, HIPAA, and information- technology hoops to jump through. Getting your applications in as early as possible puts you in position to begin on your planned start date and prevent last-minute catastrophes for your new program.

2) Gain valuable insight through observation: Study your current hospitalist group to gain perspective that will help in your new setting. All programs and hospitals operate differently and have room for quality/process improvement. Interview hospitalists, ask questions, and observe the workflow in your current hospital(s) to help in your new job.

3) Contemplate your career direction: Think strategically about your strengths and plans. Although you will learn an incredible amount about hospital medicine careers after you begin, having a sense of direction will help your new group and its leadership get you where you want to be. Making connections and making your goals known within your new program before you start will put your new career on the right path.

 

4) Seek mentors: Having mentors from your prior program and your new program is a key to a healthy and happy career. Choose people you respect and pick their brains about their careers, how they acquired their skills, and how they would advise you to do the same. Good mentors will help you for many years, and the most valuable may be the ones who have known you throughout your residency. Nurture and maintain these relationships even if you are moving on to new horizons. Inquire whether your new program has a mentorship structure or if your new group leader can recommend someone who shares common interests and goals.

5) Study SHM’s Core Com-petencies: Although you may have trepidation about your medical skills and knowledge as you move into uncharted waters, step back and relax. Know that you are prepared. That said, you can always learn more. One excellent resource is The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine: A Framework for Curriculum Development (available on SHM’s Web site, www.hospitalmedicine.org). This is a set of standards with which programs can teach hospital medicine and you can learn the scope of expectations and competencies for someone in your position.

6) Understand the nuts and bolts of your new program: Although there are many things you will learn on the job, gain an appreciation for some of the following before your first day:

• Billing: If this is your responsibility, you need to learn a little about this before you start, preferably from one of your future colleagues.
• Reimbursement structure: Find out how your productivity is tracked and rewarded. You’d be amazed how variable this can be.
• Time allotment: How are administrative, research, committee and teaching time balanced against your clinical time?

7) Get to know your new hospital: Before hitting the wards it pays to do a little homework on your new workplace. Do you have access to a medical library, journals, UpToDate, or other online databases? If not, do you need to purchase this access on your own? Many programs have academic funds allotted so you can use those resources. Also, familiarize yourself with the local antibiogram, formularies, guidelines, and order sets. Most facilities have tools specific to their hospital. Know how these affect you in your new role. Prior to starting, you will also want to be sufficiently oriented to any computer systems and understand how they’re used for documentation and order entry, and for viewing lab, radiology, and microbiology results.

8) Shadow a hospitalist: Spending a few hours with someone during a typical hospitalist work day will give you an idea of the pace of the work, the layout of the hospital and floors, the medical and ancillary staff you will work with, and the patient population. This will prompt questions you hadn’t thought of previously.

9) Prepare for each specific role: Hospitalists wear many hats, including teaching attending, non-teaching attending, consultant, researcher, committee member, and hospital medicine leader. Each role carries specific responsibilities and expectations. Prior to each new role, train with someone who leads that service or knows the job intimately.

10) Comprehend your benefits: Does your employer have a retirement program? Do they match retirement contributions? How does the malpractice insurance work? A meeting with human resources will usually help you arrange your health, dental, malpractice, and disability insurance prior to your start date. TH

Dr. Chacko is chair of SHM’s young physician committee and the hospitalist program medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City. Dr. Markoff is an assistant professor of medicine and associate director of the hospitalist service at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. Dr. Sliwka is a hospitalist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center.

Within the next few months, many of you will have a new job as an attending hospitalist. As daunting as that may seem, now is the time to think about what you can do to ensure a smooth transition and successful beginning to your career.

Although residency prepared you to face the medical challenges ahead, here are 10 pointers that may help as you move to the next stage of your professional life.

1) Familiarize yourself with the licensing/credentialing process: Do not underestimate the amount of time it takes to get this paperwork approved—up to six months in some cases. Many new hires’ first days on the job are delayed because they didn’t complete this step. Check with state licensing boards for special requirements unique to that state. Also, every hospital has its own gauntlet of infectious disease, HIPAA, and information- technology hoops to jump through. Getting your applications in as early as possible puts you in position to begin on your planned start date and prevent last-minute catastrophes for your new program.

2) Gain valuable insight through observation: Study your current hospitalist group to gain perspective that will help in your new setting. All programs and hospitals operate differently and have room for quality/process improvement. Interview hospitalists, ask questions, and observe the workflow in your current hospital(s) to help in your new job.

3) Contemplate your career direction: Think strategically about your strengths and plans. Although you will learn an incredible amount about hospital medicine careers after you begin, having a sense of direction will help your new group and its leadership get you where you want to be. Making connections and making your goals known within your new program before you start will put your new career on the right path.

 

4) Seek mentors: Having mentors from your prior program and your new program is a key to a healthy and happy career. Choose people you respect and pick their brains about their careers, how they acquired their skills, and how they would advise you to do the same. Good mentors will help you for many years, and the most valuable may be the ones who have known you throughout your residency. Nurture and maintain these relationships even if you are moving on to new horizons. Inquire whether your new program has a mentorship structure or if your new group leader can recommend someone who shares common interests and goals.

5) Study SHM’s Core Com-petencies: Although you may have trepidation about your medical skills and knowledge as you move into uncharted waters, step back and relax. Know that you are prepared. That said, you can always learn more. One excellent resource is The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine: A Framework for Curriculum Development (available on SHM’s Web site, www.hospitalmedicine.org). This is a set of standards with which programs can teach hospital medicine and you can learn the scope of expectations and competencies for someone in your position.

6) Understand the nuts and bolts of your new program: Although there are many things you will learn on the job, gain an appreciation for some of the following before your first day:

• Billing: If this is your responsibility, you need to learn a little about this before you start, preferably from one of your future colleagues.
• Reimbursement structure: Find out how your productivity is tracked and rewarded. You’d be amazed how variable this can be.
• Time allotment: How are administrative, research, committee and teaching time balanced against your clinical time?

7) Get to know your new hospital: Before hitting the wards it pays to do a little homework on your new workplace. Do you have access to a medical library, journals, UpToDate, or other online databases? If not, do you need to purchase this access on your own? Many programs have academic funds allotted so you can use those resources. Also, familiarize yourself with the local antibiogram, formularies, guidelines, and order sets. Most facilities have tools specific to their hospital. Know how these affect you in your new role. Prior to starting, you will also want to be sufficiently oriented to any computer systems and understand how they’re used for documentation and order entry, and for viewing lab, radiology, and microbiology results.

8) Shadow a hospitalist: Spending a few hours with someone during a typical hospitalist work day will give you an idea of the pace of the work, the layout of the hospital and floors, the medical and ancillary staff you will work with, and the patient population. This will prompt questions you hadn’t thought of previously.

9) Prepare for each specific role: Hospitalists wear many hats, including teaching attending, non-teaching attending, consultant, researcher, committee member, and hospital medicine leader. Each role carries specific responsibilities and expectations. Prior to each new role, train with someone who leads that service or knows the job intimately.

10) Comprehend your benefits: Does your employer have a retirement program? Do they match retirement contributions? How does the malpractice insurance work? A meeting with human resources will usually help you arrange your health, dental, malpractice, and disability insurance prior to your start date. TH

Dr. Chacko is chair of SHM’s young physician committee and the hospitalist program medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City. Dr. Markoff is an assistant professor of medicine and associate director of the hospitalist service at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. Dr. Sliwka is a hospitalist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center.

Within the next few months, many of you will have a new job as an attending hospitalist. As daunting as that may seem, now is the time to think about what you can do to ensure a smooth transition and successful beginning to your career.

Although residency prepared you to face the medical challenges ahead, here are 10 pointers that may help as you move to the next stage of your professional life.

1) Familiarize yourself with the licensing/credentialing process: Do not underestimate the amount of time it takes to get this paperwork approved—up to six months in some cases. Many new hires’ first days on the job are delayed because they didn’t complete this step. Check with state licensing boards for special requirements unique to that state. Also, every hospital has its own gauntlet of infectious disease, HIPAA, and information- technology hoops to jump through. Getting your applications in as early as possible puts you in position to begin on your planned start date and prevent last-minute catastrophes for your new program.

2) Gain valuable insight through observation: Study your current hospitalist group to gain perspective that will help in your new setting. All programs and hospitals operate differently and have room for quality/process improvement. Interview hospitalists, ask questions, and observe the workflow in your current hospital(s) to help in your new job.

3) Contemplate your career direction: Think strategically about your strengths and plans. Although you will learn an incredible amount about hospital medicine careers after you begin, having a sense of direction will help your new group and its leadership get you where you want to be. Making connections and making your goals known within your new program before you start will put your new career on the right path.

 

4) Seek mentors: Having mentors from your prior program and your new program is a key to a healthy and happy career. Choose people you respect and pick their brains about their careers, how they acquired their skills, and how they would advise you to do the same. Good mentors will help you for many years, and the most valuable may be the ones who have known you throughout your residency. Nurture and maintain these relationships even if you are moving on to new horizons. Inquire whether your new program has a mentorship structure or if your new group leader can recommend someone who shares common interests and goals.

5) Study SHM’s Core Com-petencies: Although you may have trepidation about your medical skills and knowledge as you move into uncharted waters, step back and relax. Know that you are prepared. That said, you can always learn more. One excellent resource is The Core Competencies in Hospital Medicine: A Framework for Curriculum Development (available on SHM’s Web site, www.hospitalmedicine.org). This is a set of standards with which programs can teach hospital medicine and you can learn the scope of expectations and competencies for someone in your position.

6) Understand the nuts and bolts of your new program: Although there are many things you will learn on the job, gain an appreciation for some of the following before your first day:

• Billing: If this is your responsibility, you need to learn a little about this before you start, preferably from one of your future colleagues.
• Reimbursement structure: Find out how your productivity is tracked and rewarded. You’d be amazed how variable this can be.
• Time allotment: How are administrative, research, committee and teaching time balanced against your clinical time?

7) Get to know your new hospital: Before hitting the wards it pays to do a little homework on your new workplace. Do you have access to a medical library, journals, UpToDate, or other online databases? If not, do you need to purchase this access on your own? Many programs have academic funds allotted so you can use those resources. Also, familiarize yourself with the local antibiogram, formularies, guidelines, and order sets. Most facilities have tools specific to their hospital. Know how these affect you in your new role. Prior to starting, you will also want to be sufficiently oriented to any computer systems and understand how they’re used for documentation and order entry, and for viewing lab, radiology, and microbiology results.

8) Shadow a hospitalist: Spending a few hours with someone during a typical hospitalist work day will give you an idea of the pace of the work, the layout of the hospital and floors, the medical and ancillary staff you will work with, and the patient population. This will prompt questions you hadn’t thought of previously.

9) Prepare for each specific role: Hospitalists wear many hats, including teaching attending, non-teaching attending, consultant, researcher, committee member, and hospital medicine leader. Each role carries specific responsibilities and expectations. Prior to each new role, train with someone who leads that service or knows the job intimately.

10) Comprehend your benefits: Does your employer have a retirement program? Do they match retirement contributions? How does the malpractice insurance work? A meeting with human resources will usually help you arrange your health, dental, malpractice, and disability insurance prior to your start date. TH

Dr. Chacko is chair of SHM’s young physician committee and the hospitalist program medical director for Preferred Health Partners in New York City. Dr. Markoff is an assistant professor of medicine and associate director of the hospitalist service at the Mount Sinai Hospital in New York City. Dr. Sliwka is a hospitalist and assistant professor of clinical medicine at the University of California, San Francisco Medical Center.

Semi-Recumbent Position to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Is It Possible?

By Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD

Van Nieuwenhoven CA, Vandenbroucke-Grauls C, van Tiel FH, et al. Feasibility and effects of the semirecumbent position to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized study. Crit Care Med. 2006 Feb;34(2):396-402.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality among mechanically ventilated patients. Studies with radioactive-labeled enteral feeds have demonstrated an increased frequency of endotracheal aspiration of gastric contents in supine patients. The CDC guidelines for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia advise placement of mechanically ventilated patients in a semi-recumbent position as a VAP prevention measure.

Only one previous study, by Drakulovic and colleagues, has assessed this strategy to prevent VAP.1 That study demonstrated a 75% decrease in the incidence of VAP. But van Nieuwenhoven and colleagues raised two important questions about the findings from the previous study: First, the Drakulovic study placed control patients in a horizontal (zero degrees) position, which is not the standard of care in most ICUs. Most patients are placed at 10 degrees, and this position is elevated as patients are weaned. Second, the Drakulovic study measured patients only once daily but did not monitor their body positions in between the daily measurements.

Dr. van Nieuwenhoven and colleagues set out to determine whether it is feasible to keep mechanically ventilated patients in a semi-recumbent position on a continual basis and whether this measure would prevent VAP. This was a prospective multi-centered trial in which mechanically ventilated patients were randomly assigned to the semi-recumbent position with a target backrest elevation of 45 degrees or standard of care (supine position) with a backrest elevation of 10 degrees. They used a transducer with a pendulum, which was placed on the bed frame to measure the backrest elevation every 60 seconds for up to seven days. They calculated a mean degree of elevation for each patient daily. Nurses always respected the patient’s request for positioning, but a dedicated research nurse restored backrest position to the randomized position whenever possible.

Baseline characteristics for both groups were similar. For the supine (control) group, average elevations were 9.8 degrees on day one and 16.1 degrees on day seven. For the semi-recumbent group, average elevations were 28.1 degrees on day one and 22.6 degrees on day seven. There were no significant differences in numbers of patients who developed VAP in either group.

This study suggests that, despite the use of dedicated research nurses to maintain positioning, it may not be possible to keep patients’ backrests elevated to 45 degrees. Keeping patients’ backrests at an elevation of nearly 30 degrees does not appear to prevent VAP more than keeping patients’ backrests at 10 degrees, the present standard of care.

Reference

1. Drakulovic MB, Torres A, Bauer TT, et al. Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1851-1858.

Bar Codes in Medicine: An Opportunity for Quality Improvement

By Alex Carbo, MD

Poon EG, Cina JL, Churchill W, et al. Medication dispensing errors and potential adverse drug events before and after implementing bar code technology in the pharmacy. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:426-434.

Medication errors and adverse drug events (ADEs) have received much attention in the literature; the use of health information technology to mitigate these errors and ADEs has now been proposed in many areas of healthcare. In an effort to decrease medication-dispensing errors, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated bar code use for all medications in hospitals, beginning in April 2006. While this technology has been extensively studied in other industries, there is little data describing its effects in the healthcare system.

 

Poon and colleagues set out to evaluate whether implementation of bar code technology reduced dispensing errors and the ADEs that might be caused by these miscalculations. In a before-and-after evaluation, they studied more than 350,000 dispensed medication doses in an academic medical center between February 2003 and September 2004.

During the bar code conversion process, the hospital pharmacy built a dedicated repackaging center, which was responsible for affixing a bar code to every dose of medication. These medications were then dispensed in three different configurations: two configurations required staff to verify all doses at least once using bar code scanning, and the third configuration—for commonly dispensed medications that could not be accommodated in a standard carousel machine because of their size or need for refrigeration—required scanning only one dose from each batch.

The authors found a 93% to 96% relative reduction in the incidence of target dispensing errors (P<0.001) and an 86% to 97% relative reduction in the incidence of potential ADEs (P<0.001) in the two configurations that required staff to verify all doses by scanning. The greatest reductions were seen in wrong medication errors (56%), wrong strength/dose errors (71%), wrong formulation errors (90%), and expired medication errors (100%).

In the configuration that did not require scanning of every dose, however, there was a 60% relative reduction in the incidence of target dispensing errors (P<0.001), but a 2.4-fold increase in the incidence of target potential ADEs. This included new errors attributable to wrong strength and wrong medication dispensing.

In light of the FDA’s mandate regarding bar codes, it seems that every hospital has the opportunity to improve patient safety and decrease medication error rates with the use of bar code technology. This study suggests that in order to achieve this benefit these systems should be designed to ensure that every medication dose is verified by scanning during the dispensing process.

Evaluation of a Guideline to Guide Resuscitation

By Cindy Lien, MD

Morrison LJ, Visentin LM, Kiss A, et al. Validation of a rule for termination of resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 3;355(5):478-487.

The survival rate of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is very low. Thus, guidelines have been developed for termination of resuscitation for those patients who have had no response to advanced cardiac life support provided by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel. Similar guidelines have not yet been developed, however, for situations in which patients receive basic life support from emergency workers trained in the use of an automated external cardiac defibrillator. Patients with little potential for survival are routinely transported to emergency departments, at significant cost to the healthcare system.

Morrison and colleagues present results from the Termination of Resuscitation (TOR) study, a prospective evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for the termination of basic life support by emergency medical personnel trained in the use of automated external defibrillators. The clinical prediction rule, previously developed in a retrospective review of case records from a large urban EMS system, recommends termination of resuscitation if there is no return of spontaneous circulation, no shock administered, and no witness of the arrest by EMS personnel.

In the current study, the authors obtained follow-up data for 1,240 adult patients in Ontario, Canada, who had suffered an arrest of presumed cardiac cause and were subsequently transported to the emergency department after resuscitative efforts. Twenty-four EMS systems participated in the study. The study found that only 0.5% of the patients for whom the clinical prediction rule recommended termination survived (four out of 776 patients). Of the 1,240 total study patients, 41 (3%) survived. The clinical prediction rule recommended continuation of resuscitative efforts for 37 of these 41 patients, resulting in a specificity of 90.2%. The positive predictive value for death was calculated to be 99.5% when termination was recommended.

 

The TOR trial also determined whether the addition of other criteria to the original prediction rule could further refine the specificity and positive predictive value. They found that the addition to the criteria of a response time greater than eight minutes increased the positive predictive value and specificity to 99.7% and 97.6%, respectively. When the variable “not witnessed by bystander” was added to the clinical prediction rule, both the positive predictive value and specificity increased to 100%. In other words, no patients survived if they had had a completely unwitnessed arrest, no return of spontaneous circulation, and no shocks delivered.

This study identifies a subpopulation of patients with presumed cardiac arrest for whom termination of resuscitative efforts in the field appears reasonable. The authors note that a survival rate of 1% or less has been suggested in past literature as reflective of medical futility. The TOR investigators acknowledge that their study took place before the 2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care were released and that their study protocols were consistent with the 2000 resuscitation guidelines. In light of this information, continued validity testing of the clinical prediction rule under the 2005 AHA protocols is needed.

Nonetheless, it is quite impressive that use of their clinical prediction rule would have resulted in transportation of only 37% of patients (464 of 1,240), rather than 100% of patients, as is currently the practice. If the guidelines described in this article are to be implemented, further studies are necessary to address the training of EMS personnel, who would carry responsibility for terminating resuscitation and notifying families of patients’ deaths.

Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

By Diane Sliwka, MD

Koeman M, van der Ven AJ, Hak E, et al. Oral decontamination with chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006 Jun;173(12):1348-1355. Epub 2006 Apr 7.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is an important nosocomial source of morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic antimicrobials to decrease VAP raises concern for antimicrobial resistance. This study evaluates the topical antiseptic chlorhexidine (CHX) as an alternative prophylactic intervention for VAP. CHX has previously been shown to decrease VAP in cardiac surgical patients, but has not been studied in higher risk, long-term-ventilated patients. Because CHX works better for gram-positive organisms, the combination of colistin and CHX (COL + CHX) was also studied for improved gram-negative coverage.

This multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 385 adult patients. Patients who were expected to be intubated for longer than 48 hours were randomized to 3 arms: CHX alone, CHX + COL, and placebo. Exclusion criteria included known preadmission immunocompromised state, pregnancy, and physical limitation to oral application. Pneumonia was defined by clinical decision-making, which was later confirmed by three blinded intensivists’ reviews of the case records and supported by daily clinical pulmonary infection scores.

The primary endpoint of VAP was diagnosed in 52 of 385 patients: 18% placebo, 13% CHX, and 10% CHX + COL. Rate of VAP in the two treatment groups was lower than placebo and reached statistical significance when compared to placebo. The daily hazard ratio for CHX versus placebo was .352 (95% CI .160, .791); for CHX + COL versus placebo, it was .454 (95% CI .224, .925), showing a 65% and 55% reduction in the rate of pneumonia development. Multivariate analysis of variables such as gender, pulmonary admission diagnosis, colonization at time of admission, and antimicrobial use on admission did not affect the data.

The secondary endpoint of endotracheal colonization was evaluated by a twice-weekly endotracheal culture. There was no statistically significant difference in colonization among the three groups in the first (days 1-4) or third (days 9-12) time frames. During the second time frame (days 5-8), there was a statistically significant decrease in colonization for the CHX + COL treatment group when compared to both placebo (16% versus 40% p<.007) and to CHX (16% versus 38%, p<.011); this decrease is thought to be due to gram-negative coverage by COL.

 

The secondary endpoint of oropharyngeal colonization was evaluated for 87% of all patient days. CHX and CHX + COL were similarly effective for gram-positive bacteria when compared to placebo, with 30% and 27% reduction in rates of colonization, respectively: HR 0.695 for CHX (95% CI, 0.606, 0.796; p < 0.001) and 0.732 (95% CI, 0.640, 0.838; p < 0.001) for CHX + COL. The CHX + COL combination was more effective for gram-negative bacteria: daily HR .534 (95% CI, 0.455, 0.626; p <0.001) alone with a 47% reduction in gram-negative colonization compared to CHX.

No difference was seen in ICU mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or duration of ICU stay. One adverse event (tongue swelling) occurred in the CHX + COL group.

Limitations of the study include the following:

• Daily assessments on all patients were not performed;
• The placebo group had more males and more infections on admission than the other two groups, raising the question of randomization error;
• Clinical versus quantitative diagnosis of pneumonia may overestimate VAP in this study;
• It is not known how many patients were not enrolled in the study due to short anticipated ventilator times, but who later had prolonged ventilations; and
• The lack of effect on ventilator time, ICU length of stay, and mortality raises the question of the significance of these findings.

Despite these limitations, the low cost of these treatments, minimal adverse events, low risk of promoting significant antimicrobial resistance, and the finding of decreased VAP and bacterial colonization risk shown in this study support the potential benefit of topical decontamination with CHX and COL in conjunction with other measures of VAP prevention. TH

Reference

1. De Riso AJ II, Ladowski JS, Dillon TA, et al. Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% oral rinse reduces the incidence of total nosocomial respiratory infection and nonprophylactic systemic antibiotic use in patients undergoing heart surgery. Chest. 1996;109:1556-1561.

Semi-Recumbent Position to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Is It Possible?

By Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD

Van Nieuwenhoven CA, Vandenbroucke-Grauls C, van Tiel FH, et al. Feasibility and effects of the semirecumbent position to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized study. Crit Care Med. 2006 Feb;34(2):396-402.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality among mechanically ventilated patients. Studies with radioactive-labeled enteral feeds have demonstrated an increased frequency of endotracheal aspiration of gastric contents in supine patients. The CDC guidelines for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia advise placement of mechanically ventilated patients in a semi-recumbent position as a VAP prevention measure.

Only one previous study, by Drakulovic and colleagues, has assessed this strategy to prevent VAP.1 That study demonstrated a 75% decrease in the incidence of VAP. But van Nieuwenhoven and colleagues raised two important questions about the findings from the previous study: First, the Drakulovic study placed control patients in a horizontal (zero degrees) position, which is not the standard of care in most ICUs. Most patients are placed at 10 degrees, and this position is elevated as patients are weaned. Second, the Drakulovic study measured patients only once daily but did not monitor their body positions in between the daily measurements.

Dr. van Nieuwenhoven and colleagues set out to determine whether it is feasible to keep mechanically ventilated patients in a semi-recumbent position on a continual basis and whether this measure would prevent VAP. This was a prospective multi-centered trial in which mechanically ventilated patients were randomly assigned to the semi-recumbent position with a target backrest elevation of 45 degrees or standard of care (supine position) with a backrest elevation of 10 degrees. They used a transducer with a pendulum, which was placed on the bed frame to measure the backrest elevation every 60 seconds for up to seven days. They calculated a mean degree of elevation for each patient daily. Nurses always respected the patient’s request for positioning, but a dedicated research nurse restored backrest position to the randomized position whenever possible.

Baseline characteristics for both groups were similar. For the supine (control) group, average elevations were 9.8 degrees on day one and 16.1 degrees on day seven. For the semi-recumbent group, average elevations were 28.1 degrees on day one and 22.6 degrees on day seven. There were no significant differences in numbers of patients who developed VAP in either group.

This study suggests that, despite the use of dedicated research nurses to maintain positioning, it may not be possible to keep patients’ backrests elevated to 45 degrees. Keeping patients’ backrests at an elevation of nearly 30 degrees does not appear to prevent VAP more than keeping patients’ backrests at 10 degrees, the present standard of care.

Reference

1. Drakulovic MB, Torres A, Bauer TT, et al. Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1851-1858.

Bar Codes in Medicine: An Opportunity for Quality Improvement

By Alex Carbo, MD

Poon EG, Cina JL, Churchill W, et al. Medication dispensing errors and potential adverse drug events before and after implementing bar code technology in the pharmacy. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:426-434.

Medication errors and adverse drug events (ADEs) have received much attention in the literature; the use of health information technology to mitigate these errors and ADEs has now been proposed in many areas of healthcare. In an effort to decrease medication-dispensing errors, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated bar code use for all medications in hospitals, beginning in April 2006. While this technology has been extensively studied in other industries, there is little data describing its effects in the healthcare system.

 

Poon and colleagues set out to evaluate whether implementation of bar code technology reduced dispensing errors and the ADEs that might be caused by these miscalculations. In a before-and-after evaluation, they studied more than 350,000 dispensed medication doses in an academic medical center between February 2003 and September 2004.

During the bar code conversion process, the hospital pharmacy built a dedicated repackaging center, which was responsible for affixing a bar code to every dose of medication. These medications were then dispensed in three different configurations: two configurations required staff to verify all doses at least once using bar code scanning, and the third configuration—for commonly dispensed medications that could not be accommodated in a standard carousel machine because of their size or need for refrigeration—required scanning only one dose from each batch.

The authors found a 93% to 96% relative reduction in the incidence of target dispensing errors (P<0.001) and an 86% to 97% relative reduction in the incidence of potential ADEs (P<0.001) in the two configurations that required staff to verify all doses by scanning. The greatest reductions were seen in wrong medication errors (56%), wrong strength/dose errors (71%), wrong formulation errors (90%), and expired medication errors (100%).

In the configuration that did not require scanning of every dose, however, there was a 60% relative reduction in the incidence of target dispensing errors (P<0.001), but a 2.4-fold increase in the incidence of target potential ADEs. This included new errors attributable to wrong strength and wrong medication dispensing.

In light of the FDA’s mandate regarding bar codes, it seems that every hospital has the opportunity to improve patient safety and decrease medication error rates with the use of bar code technology. This study suggests that in order to achieve this benefit these systems should be designed to ensure that every medication dose is verified by scanning during the dispensing process.

Evaluation of a Guideline to Guide Resuscitation

By Cindy Lien, MD

Morrison LJ, Visentin LM, Kiss A, et al. Validation of a rule for termination of resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 3;355(5):478-487.

The survival rate of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is very low. Thus, guidelines have been developed for termination of resuscitation for those patients who have had no response to advanced cardiac life support provided by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel. Similar guidelines have not yet been developed, however, for situations in which patients receive basic life support from emergency workers trained in the use of an automated external cardiac defibrillator. Patients with little potential for survival are routinely transported to emergency departments, at significant cost to the healthcare system.

Morrison and colleagues present results from the Termination of Resuscitation (TOR) study, a prospective evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for the termination of basic life support by emergency medical personnel trained in the use of automated external defibrillators. The clinical prediction rule, previously developed in a retrospective review of case records from a large urban EMS system, recommends termination of resuscitation if there is no return of spontaneous circulation, no shock administered, and no witness of the arrest by EMS personnel.

In the current study, the authors obtained follow-up data for 1,240 adult patients in Ontario, Canada, who had suffered an arrest of presumed cardiac cause and were subsequently transported to the emergency department after resuscitative efforts. Twenty-four EMS systems participated in the study. The study found that only 0.5% of the patients for whom the clinical prediction rule recommended termination survived (four out of 776 patients). Of the 1,240 total study patients, 41 (3%) survived. The clinical prediction rule recommended continuation of resuscitative efforts for 37 of these 41 patients, resulting in a specificity of 90.2%. The positive predictive value for death was calculated to be 99.5% when termination was recommended.

 

The TOR trial also determined whether the addition of other criteria to the original prediction rule could further refine the specificity and positive predictive value. They found that the addition to the criteria of a response time greater than eight minutes increased the positive predictive value and specificity to 99.7% and 97.6%, respectively. When the variable “not witnessed by bystander” was added to the clinical prediction rule, both the positive predictive value and specificity increased to 100%. In other words, no patients survived if they had had a completely unwitnessed arrest, no return of spontaneous circulation, and no shocks delivered.

This study identifies a subpopulation of patients with presumed cardiac arrest for whom termination of resuscitative efforts in the field appears reasonable. The authors note that a survival rate of 1% or less has been suggested in past literature as reflective of medical futility. The TOR investigators acknowledge that their study took place before the 2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care were released and that their study protocols were consistent with the 2000 resuscitation guidelines. In light of this information, continued validity testing of the clinical prediction rule under the 2005 AHA protocols is needed.

Nonetheless, it is quite impressive that use of their clinical prediction rule would have resulted in transportation of only 37% of patients (464 of 1,240), rather than 100% of patients, as is currently the practice. If the guidelines described in this article are to be implemented, further studies are necessary to address the training of EMS personnel, who would carry responsibility for terminating resuscitation and notifying families of patients’ deaths.

Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

By Diane Sliwka, MD

Koeman M, van der Ven AJ, Hak E, et al. Oral decontamination with chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006 Jun;173(12):1348-1355. Epub 2006 Apr 7.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is an important nosocomial source of morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic antimicrobials to decrease VAP raises concern for antimicrobial resistance. This study evaluates the topical antiseptic chlorhexidine (CHX) as an alternative prophylactic intervention for VAP. CHX has previously been shown to decrease VAP in cardiac surgical patients, but has not been studied in higher risk, long-term-ventilated patients. Because CHX works better for gram-positive organisms, the combination of colistin and CHX (COL + CHX) was also studied for improved gram-negative coverage.

This multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 385 adult patients. Patients who were expected to be intubated for longer than 48 hours were randomized to 3 arms: CHX alone, CHX + COL, and placebo. Exclusion criteria included known preadmission immunocompromised state, pregnancy, and physical limitation to oral application. Pneumonia was defined by clinical decision-making, which was later confirmed by three blinded intensivists’ reviews of the case records and supported by daily clinical pulmonary infection scores.

The primary endpoint of VAP was diagnosed in 52 of 385 patients: 18% placebo, 13% CHX, and 10% CHX + COL. Rate of VAP in the two treatment groups was lower than placebo and reached statistical significance when compared to placebo. The daily hazard ratio for CHX versus placebo was .352 (95% CI .160, .791); for CHX + COL versus placebo, it was .454 (95% CI .224, .925), showing a 65% and 55% reduction in the rate of pneumonia development. Multivariate analysis of variables such as gender, pulmonary admission diagnosis, colonization at time of admission, and antimicrobial use on admission did not affect the data.

The secondary endpoint of endotracheal colonization was evaluated by a twice-weekly endotracheal culture. There was no statistically significant difference in colonization among the three groups in the first (days 1-4) or third (days 9-12) time frames. During the second time frame (days 5-8), there was a statistically significant decrease in colonization for the CHX + COL treatment group when compared to both placebo (16% versus 40% p<.007) and to CHX (16% versus 38%, p<.011); this decrease is thought to be due to gram-negative coverage by COL.

 

The secondary endpoint of oropharyngeal colonization was evaluated for 87% of all patient days. CHX and CHX + COL were similarly effective for gram-positive bacteria when compared to placebo, with 30% and 27% reduction in rates of colonization, respectively: HR 0.695 for CHX (95% CI, 0.606, 0.796; p < 0.001) and 0.732 (95% CI, 0.640, 0.838; p < 0.001) for CHX + COL. The CHX + COL combination was more effective for gram-negative bacteria: daily HR .534 (95% CI, 0.455, 0.626; p <0.001) alone with a 47% reduction in gram-negative colonization compared to CHX.

No difference was seen in ICU mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or duration of ICU stay. One adverse event (tongue swelling) occurred in the CHX + COL group.

Limitations of the study include the following:

• Daily assessments on all patients were not performed;
• The placebo group had more males and more infections on admission than the other two groups, raising the question of randomization error;
• Clinical versus quantitative diagnosis of pneumonia may overestimate VAP in this study;
• It is not known how many patients were not enrolled in the study due to short anticipated ventilator times, but who later had prolonged ventilations; and
• The lack of effect on ventilator time, ICU length of stay, and mortality raises the question of the significance of these findings.

Despite these limitations, the low cost of these treatments, minimal adverse events, low risk of promoting significant antimicrobial resistance, and the finding of decreased VAP and bacterial colonization risk shown in this study support the potential benefit of topical decontamination with CHX and COL in conjunction with other measures of VAP prevention. TH

Reference

1. De Riso AJ II, Ladowski JS, Dillon TA, et al. Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% oral rinse reduces the incidence of total nosocomial respiratory infection and nonprophylactic systemic antibiotic use in patients undergoing heart surgery. Chest. 1996;109:1556-1561.

Semi-Recumbent Position to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia: Is It Possible?

By Joseph Ming Wah Li, MD

Van Nieuwenhoven CA, Vandenbroucke-Grauls C, van Tiel FH, et al. Feasibility and effects of the semirecumbent position to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia: a randomized study. Crit Care Med. 2006 Feb;34(2):396-402.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality among mechanically ventilated patients. Studies with radioactive-labeled enteral feeds have demonstrated an increased frequency of endotracheal aspiration of gastric contents in supine patients. The CDC guidelines for prevention of nosocomial pneumonia advise placement of mechanically ventilated patients in a semi-recumbent position as a VAP prevention measure.

Only one previous study, by Drakulovic and colleagues, has assessed this strategy to prevent VAP.1 That study demonstrated a 75% decrease in the incidence of VAP. But van Nieuwenhoven and colleagues raised two important questions about the findings from the previous study: First, the Drakulovic study placed control patients in a horizontal (zero degrees) position, which is not the standard of care in most ICUs. Most patients are placed at 10 degrees, and this position is elevated as patients are weaned. Second, the Drakulovic study measured patients only once daily but did not monitor their body positions in between the daily measurements.

Dr. van Nieuwenhoven and colleagues set out to determine whether it is feasible to keep mechanically ventilated patients in a semi-recumbent position on a continual basis and whether this measure would prevent VAP. This was a prospective multi-centered trial in which mechanically ventilated patients were randomly assigned to the semi-recumbent position with a target backrest elevation of 45 degrees or standard of care (supine position) with a backrest elevation of 10 degrees. They used a transducer with a pendulum, which was placed on the bed frame to measure the backrest elevation every 60 seconds for up to seven days. They calculated a mean degree of elevation for each patient daily. Nurses always respected the patient’s request for positioning, but a dedicated research nurse restored backrest position to the randomized position whenever possible.

Baseline characteristics for both groups were similar. For the supine (control) group, average elevations were 9.8 degrees on day one and 16.1 degrees on day seven. For the semi-recumbent group, average elevations were 28.1 degrees on day one and 22.6 degrees on day seven. There were no significant differences in numbers of patients who developed VAP in either group.

This study suggests that, despite the use of dedicated research nurses to maintain positioning, it may not be possible to keep patients’ backrests elevated to 45 degrees. Keeping patients’ backrests at an elevation of nearly 30 degrees does not appear to prevent VAP more than keeping patients’ backrests at 10 degrees, the present standard of care.

Reference

1. Drakulovic MB, Torres A, Bauer TT, et al. Supine body position as a risk factor for nosocomial pneumonia in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised trial. Lancet. 1999;354(9193):1851-1858.

Bar Codes in Medicine: An Opportunity for Quality Improvement

By Alex Carbo, MD

Poon EG, Cina JL, Churchill W, et al. Medication dispensing errors and potential adverse drug events before and after implementing bar code technology in the pharmacy. Ann Intern Med. 2006;145:426-434.

Medication errors and adverse drug events (ADEs) have received much attention in the literature; the use of health information technology to mitigate these errors and ADEs has now been proposed in many areas of healthcare. In an effort to decrease medication-dispensing errors, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated bar code use for all medications in hospitals, beginning in April 2006. While this technology has been extensively studied in other industries, there is little data describing its effects in the healthcare system.

 

Poon and colleagues set out to evaluate whether implementation of bar code technology reduced dispensing errors and the ADEs that might be caused by these miscalculations. In a before-and-after evaluation, they studied more than 350,000 dispensed medication doses in an academic medical center between February 2003 and September 2004.

During the bar code conversion process, the hospital pharmacy built a dedicated repackaging center, which was responsible for affixing a bar code to every dose of medication. These medications were then dispensed in three different configurations: two configurations required staff to verify all doses at least once using bar code scanning, and the third configuration—for commonly dispensed medications that could not be accommodated in a standard carousel machine because of their size or need for refrigeration—required scanning only one dose from each batch.

The authors found a 93% to 96% relative reduction in the incidence of target dispensing errors (P<0.001) and an 86% to 97% relative reduction in the incidence of potential ADEs (P<0.001) in the two configurations that required staff to verify all doses by scanning. The greatest reductions were seen in wrong medication errors (56%), wrong strength/dose errors (71%), wrong formulation errors (90%), and expired medication errors (100%).

In the configuration that did not require scanning of every dose, however, there was a 60% relative reduction in the incidence of target dispensing errors (P<0.001), but a 2.4-fold increase in the incidence of target potential ADEs. This included new errors attributable to wrong strength and wrong medication dispensing.

In light of the FDA’s mandate regarding bar codes, it seems that every hospital has the opportunity to improve patient safety and decrease medication error rates with the use of bar code technology. This study suggests that in order to achieve this benefit these systems should be designed to ensure that every medication dose is verified by scanning during the dispensing process.

Evaluation of a Guideline to Guide Resuscitation

By Cindy Lien, MD

Morrison LJ, Visentin LM, Kiss A, et al. Validation of a rule for termination of resuscitation in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 2006 Aug 3;355(5):478-487.

The survival rate of patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is very low. Thus, guidelines have been developed for termination of resuscitation for those patients who have had no response to advanced cardiac life support provided by emergency medical service (EMS) personnel. Similar guidelines have not yet been developed, however, for situations in which patients receive basic life support from emergency workers trained in the use of an automated external cardiac defibrillator. Patients with little potential for survival are routinely transported to emergency departments, at significant cost to the healthcare system.

Morrison and colleagues present results from the Termination of Resuscitation (TOR) study, a prospective evaluation of a clinical prediction rule for the termination of basic life support by emergency medical personnel trained in the use of automated external defibrillators. The clinical prediction rule, previously developed in a retrospective review of case records from a large urban EMS system, recommends termination of resuscitation if there is no return of spontaneous circulation, no shock administered, and no witness of the arrest by EMS personnel.

In the current study, the authors obtained follow-up data for 1,240 adult patients in Ontario, Canada, who had suffered an arrest of presumed cardiac cause and were subsequently transported to the emergency department after resuscitative efforts. Twenty-four EMS systems participated in the study. The study found that only 0.5% of the patients for whom the clinical prediction rule recommended termination survived (four out of 776 patients). Of the 1,240 total study patients, 41 (3%) survived. The clinical prediction rule recommended continuation of resuscitative efforts for 37 of these 41 patients, resulting in a specificity of 90.2%. The positive predictive value for death was calculated to be 99.5% when termination was recommended.

 

The TOR trial also determined whether the addition of other criteria to the original prediction rule could further refine the specificity and positive predictive value. They found that the addition to the criteria of a response time greater than eight minutes increased the positive predictive value and specificity to 99.7% and 97.6%, respectively. When the variable “not witnessed by bystander” was added to the clinical prediction rule, both the positive predictive value and specificity increased to 100%. In other words, no patients survived if they had had a completely unwitnessed arrest, no return of spontaneous circulation, and no shocks delivered.

This study identifies a subpopulation of patients with presumed cardiac arrest for whom termination of resuscitative efforts in the field appears reasonable. The authors note that a survival rate of 1% or less has been suggested in past literature as reflective of medical futility. The TOR investigators acknowledge that their study took place before the 2005 AHA Guidelines for Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation and Emergency Cardiovascular Care were released and that their study protocols were consistent with the 2000 resuscitation guidelines. In light of this information, continued validity testing of the clinical prediction rule under the 2005 AHA protocols is needed.

Nonetheless, it is quite impressive that use of their clinical prediction rule would have resulted in transportation of only 37% of patients (464 of 1,240), rather than 100% of patients, as is currently the practice. If the guidelines described in this article are to be implemented, further studies are necessary to address the training of EMS personnel, who would carry responsibility for terminating resuscitation and notifying families of patients’ deaths.

Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia

By Diane Sliwka, MD

Koeman M, van der Ven AJ, Hak E, et al. Oral decontamination with chlorhexidine reduces the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006 Jun;173(12):1348-1355. Epub 2006 Apr 7.

Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is an important nosocomial source of morbidity and mortality. The use of prophylactic antimicrobials to decrease VAP raises concern for antimicrobial resistance. This study evaluates the topical antiseptic chlorhexidine (CHX) as an alternative prophylactic intervention for VAP. CHX has previously been shown to decrease VAP in cardiac surgical patients, but has not been studied in higher risk, long-term-ventilated patients. Because CHX works better for gram-positive organisms, the combination of colistin and CHX (COL + CHX) was also studied for improved gram-negative coverage.

This multi-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial enrolled 385 adult patients. Patients who were expected to be intubated for longer than 48 hours were randomized to 3 arms: CHX alone, CHX + COL, and placebo. Exclusion criteria included known preadmission immunocompromised state, pregnancy, and physical limitation to oral application. Pneumonia was defined by clinical decision-making, which was later confirmed by three blinded intensivists’ reviews of the case records and supported by daily clinical pulmonary infection scores.

The primary endpoint of VAP was diagnosed in 52 of 385 patients: 18% placebo, 13% CHX, and 10% CHX + COL. Rate of VAP in the two treatment groups was lower than placebo and reached statistical significance when compared to placebo. The daily hazard ratio for CHX versus placebo was .352 (95% CI .160, .791); for CHX + COL versus placebo, it was .454 (95% CI .224, .925), showing a 65% and 55% reduction in the rate of pneumonia development. Multivariate analysis of variables such as gender, pulmonary admission diagnosis, colonization at time of admission, and antimicrobial use on admission did not affect the data.

The secondary endpoint of endotracheal colonization was evaluated by a twice-weekly endotracheal culture. There was no statistically significant difference in colonization among the three groups in the first (days 1-4) or third (days 9-12) time frames. During the second time frame (days 5-8), there was a statistically significant decrease in colonization for the CHX + COL treatment group when compared to both placebo (16% versus 40% p<.007) and to CHX (16% versus 38%, p<.011); this decrease is thought to be due to gram-negative coverage by COL.

 

The secondary endpoint of oropharyngeal colonization was evaluated for 87% of all patient days. CHX and CHX + COL were similarly effective for gram-positive bacteria when compared to placebo, with 30% and 27% reduction in rates of colonization, respectively: HR 0.695 for CHX (95% CI, 0.606, 0.796; p < 0.001) and 0.732 (95% CI, 0.640, 0.838; p < 0.001) for CHX + COL. The CHX + COL combination was more effective for gram-negative bacteria: daily HR .534 (95% CI, 0.455, 0.626; p <0.001) alone with a 47% reduction in gram-negative colonization compared to CHX.

No difference was seen in ICU mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation, or duration of ICU stay. One adverse event (tongue swelling) occurred in the CHX + COL group.

Limitations of the study include the following:

• Daily assessments on all patients were not performed;
• The placebo group had more males and more infections on admission than the other two groups, raising the question of randomization error;
• Clinical versus quantitative diagnosis of pneumonia may overestimate VAP in this study;
• It is not known how many patients were not enrolled in the study due to short anticipated ventilator times, but who later had prolonged ventilations; and
• The lack of effect on ventilator time, ICU length of stay, and mortality raises the question of the significance of these findings.

Despite these limitations, the low cost of these treatments, minimal adverse events, low risk of promoting significant antimicrobial resistance, and the finding of decreased VAP and bacterial colonization risk shown in this study support the potential benefit of topical decontamination with CHX and COL in conjunction with other measures of VAP prevention. TH

Reference

1. De Riso AJ II, Ladowski JS, Dillon TA, et al. Chlorhexidine gluconate 0.12% oral rinse reduces the incidence of total nosocomial respiratory infection and nonprophylactic systemic antibiotic use in patients undergoing heart surgery. Chest. 1996;109:1556-1561.