Rebecca A Greene1, Andrew R Zullo1,2,3, Craig M Mailloux4, Christine Berard-Collins1, Mitchell M Levy5, Timothy Amass5. 1. Department of Pharmacy, Lifespan-Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI. 2. Department of Health Services, Policy, and Practice, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, RI. 3. Center of Innovation in Long-Term Services and Supports, Providence Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Providence, RI. 4. Operational Excellence, Lifespan Corporate Services, Providence, RI. 5. Department of Medicine, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care, and Sleep Medicine, Rhode Island Hospital and Alpert Medical School of Brown University, Providence, RI.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether best practice advisories improved sedation protocol compliance and could mitigate potential propofol-related hazardous conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Two adult ICUs at two academic medical centers that share the same sedation protocol. PATIENTS: Adults 18 years old or older admitted to the ICU between January 1, 2016, and January 31, 2018, who received a continuous infusion of propofol. INTERVENTIONS: Two concurrent best practice advisories built in the electronic health record as a clinical decision support tool to enforce protocol compliance with triglyceride and lipase level monitoring and mitigate propofol-related hazardous conditions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes were baseline and day 3 compliance with triglyceride and lipase laboratory monitoring per protocol and time to discontinuation of propofol in the setting of triglyceride and/or lipase levels exceeding protocol cutoffs. A total of 1,394 patients were included in the study cohort (n = 700 in the pre-best practice advisory group; n = 694 in the post-best practice advisory group). In inverse probability weighted regression analyses, implementing the best practice advisory was associated with a 56.6% (95% CI, 52.6-60.9) absolute increase and a 173% relative increase (risk ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.45-3.04) in baseline laboratory monitoring. The best practice advisory was associated with a 34.0% (95% CI, 20.9-47.1) absolute increase and a 74% (95% CI, 1.39-2.19) relative increase in day 3 laboratory monitoring after inverse probability weighted analyses. Among patients with laboratory values exceeding protocol cutoffs, implementation of the best practice advisory resulted in providers discontinuing propofol an average of 16.6 hours (95% CI, 4.8-28.3) sooner than pre-best practice advisory. Findings from alternate analyses using interrupted time series were consistent with the inverse probability weighted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Best practice advisories can be effectively used in ICUs to improve sedation protocol compliance and may mitigate potential propofol-related hazardous conditions. Best practice advisories should undergo continuous quality assurance and optimizations to maximize clinical utility and minimize alert fatigue.
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether best practice advisories improved sedation protocol compliance and could mitigate potential propofol-related hazardous conditions. DESIGN: Retrospective observational cohort study. SETTING: Two adult ICUs at two academic medical centers that share the same sedation protocol. PATIENTS: Adults 18 years old or older admitted to the ICU between January 1, 2016, and January 31, 2018, who received a continuous infusion of propofol. INTERVENTIONS: Two concurrent best practice advisories built in the electronic health record as a clinical decision support tool to enforce protocol compliance with triglyceride and lipase level monitoring and mitigate propofol-related hazardous conditions. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcomes were baseline and day 3 compliance with triglyceride and lipase laboratory monitoring per protocol and time to discontinuation of propofol in the setting of triglyceride and/or lipase levels exceeding protocol cutoffs. A total of 1,394 patients were included in the study cohort (n = 700 in the pre-best practice advisory group; n = 694 in the post-best practice advisory group). In inverse probability weighted regression analyses, implementing the best practice advisory was associated with a 56.6% (95% CI, 52.6-60.9) absolute increase and a 173% relative increase (risk ratio, 2.73; 95% CI, 2.45-3.04) in baseline laboratory monitoring. The best practice advisory was associated with a 34.0% (95% CI, 20.9-47.1) absolute increase and a 74% (95% CI, 1.39-2.19) relative increase in day 3 laboratory monitoring after inverse probability weighted analyses. Among patients with laboratory values exceeding protocol cutoffs, implementation of the best practice advisory resulted in providers discontinuing propofol an average of 16.6 hours (95% CI, 4.8-28.3) sooner than pre-best practice advisory. Findings from alternate analyses using interrupted time series were consistent with the inverse probability weighted analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Best practice advisories can be effectively used in ICUs to improve sedation protocol compliance and may mitigate potential propofol-related hazardous conditions. Best practice advisories should undergo continuous quality assurance and optimizations to maximize clinical utility and minimize alert fatigue.
Authors: Sundeep Khosla; Teresita M Bellido; Marc K Drezner; Catherine M Gordon; Tamara B Harris; Douglas P Kiel; Barbara E Kream; Meryl S LeBoff; Jane B Lian; Charlotte A Peterson; Clifford J Rosen; John P Williams; Karen K Winer; Sherry S Sherman Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2011-09-13 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: John W Devlin; Yoanna Skrobik; Céline Gélinas; Dale M Needham; Arjen J C Slooter; Pratik P Pandharipande; Paula L Watson; Gerald L Weinhouse; Mark E Nunnally; Bram Rochwerg; Michele C Balas; Mark van den Boogaard; Karen J Bosma; Nathaniel E Brummel; Gerald Chanques; Linda Denehy; Xavier Drouot; Gilles L Fraser; Jocelyn E Harris; Aaron M Joffe; Michelle E Kho; John P Kress; Julie A Lanphere; Sharon McKinley; Karin J Neufeld; Margaret A Pisani; Jean-Francois Payen; Brenda T Pun; Kathleen A Puntillo; Richard R Riker; Bryce R H Robinson; Yahya Shehabi; Paul M Szumita; Chris Winkelman; John E Centofanti; Carrie Price; Sina Nikayin; Cheryl J Misak; Pamela D Flood; Ken Kiedrowski; Waleed Alhazzani Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Sandra L Kane-Gill; Joseph F Dasta; Mitchell S Buckley; Sandeep Devabhakthuni; Michael Liu; Henry Cohen; Elisabeth L George; Anne S Pohlman; Swati Agarwal; Elizabeth A Henneman; Sharon M Bejian; Sean M Berenholtz; Jodie L Pepin; Mathew C Scanlon; Brian S Smith Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Lisa M Harinstein; Sandra L Kane-Gill; Pamela L Smithburger; Colleen M Culley; Vivek K Reddy; Amy L Seybert Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2012-04-18 Impact factor: 3.425