Patient-centered approach to ensuring appropriateness of care through blood management

Barriers and facilitators to reduce low-value care: a qualitative evidence synthesis

OBJECTIVE

To assess barriers and facilitators to de-implementation.

DESIGN

A qualitative evidence synthesis with a framework analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Rx for Change databases until September 2018 were searched.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included studies that primarily focused on identifying factors influencing de-implementation or the continuation of low-value care, and studies describing influencing factors related to the effect of a de-implementation strategy.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The factors were classified on five levels: individual provider, individual patient, social context, organisational context, economic/political context.

RESULTS

We identified 333 factors in 81 articles. Factors related to the individual provider (n=131; 74% barriers, 17% facilitators, 9% both barrier/facilitator) were associated with their attitude (n=72; 55%), knowledge/skills (n=43; 33%), behaviour (n=11; 8%) and provider characteristics (n=5; 4%). Individual patient factors (n=58; 72% barriers, 9% facilitators, 19% both barrier/facilitator) were mainly related to knowledge (n=33; 56%) and attitude (n=13; 22%). Factors related to the social context (n=46; 41% barriers, 48% facilitators, 11% both barrier/facilitator) included mainly professional teams (n=23; 50%) and professional development (n=12; 26%). Frequent factors in the organisational context (n=67; 67% barriers, 25% facilitators, 8% both barrier/facilitator) were available resources (n=28; 41%) and organisational structures and work routines (n=24; 36%). Under the category of economic and political context (n=31; 71% barriers, 13% facilitators, 16% both barrier/facilitator), financial incentives were most common (n=27; 87%).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides in-depth insight into the factors within the different (sub)categories that are important in reducing low-value care. This can be used to identify barriers and facilitators in low-value care practices or to stimulate development of strategies that need further refinement. We conclude that multifaceted de-implementation strategies are often necessary for effective reduction of low-value care. Situation-specific knowledge of impeding or facilitating factors across all levels is important for designing tailored de-implementation strategies.

Restrictive Transfusion Strategy and Clinical Decision Support Practices for Reducing RBC Transfusion Overuse

OBJECTIVES

Assess support for the effectiveness of two separate practices, restrictive transfusion strategy and computerized physician order entry/clinical decision support (CPOE/CDS) tools, in decreasing RBC transfusions in adult surgical and nonsurgical patients.

METHODS

Following the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Laboratory Medicine Best Practice (LMBP) Systematic Review (A-6) method, studies were assessed for quality and evidence of effectiveness in reducing the percentage of patients transfused and/or units of blood transfused.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies on restrictive transfusion practice and seven studies on CPOE/CDS practice met LMBP inclusion criteria. The overall strength of the body of evidence of effectiveness for restrictive transfusion strategy and CPOE/CDS was rated as high.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on these procedures, adherence to an institutional restrictive transfusion strategy and use of CPOE/CDS tools for hemoglobin alerts or reminders of the institution's restrictive transfusion policies are effective in reducing RBC transfusion overuse.

Behaviour modification interventions to optimise red blood cell transfusion practices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of behaviour modification interventions to promote restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion practices.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, INTERVENTIONS

Seven electronic databases were searched to January 2018. Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or non-randomised studies examining an intervention to modify healthcare providers' RBC transfusion practice in any healthcare setting were included.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was the proportion of patients transfused. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of inappropriate transfusions, RBC units transfused per patient, in-hospital mortality, length of stay (LOS), pretransfusion haemoglobin and healthcare costs. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model and meta-regression was performed in cases of heterogeneity. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's funnel plot.

RESULTS

Eighty-four low to moderate quality studies were included: 3 were RCTs and 81 were non-randomised studies. Thirty-one studies evaluated a single intervention, 44 examined a multimodal intervention. The comparator in all studies was standard of care or historical control. In 33 non-randomised studies, use of an intervention was associated with reduced odds of transfusion (OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.56 to 0.71)), odds of inappropriate transfusion (OR 0.46 (95% CI 0.36 to 0.59)), RBC units/patient weighted mean difference (WMD: -0.50 units (95% CI -0.85 to -0.16)), LOS (WMD: -1.14 days (95% CI -2.12 to -0.16)) and pretransfusion haemoglobin (-0.28 g/dL (95% CI -0.48 to -0.08)). There was no difference in odds of mortality (OR 0.90 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.02)). Protocol/algorithm and multimodal interventions were associated with the greatest decreases in the primary outcome. There was high heterogeneity among estimates and evidence for publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature examining the impact of interventions on RBC transfusions is extensive, although most studies are non-randomised. Despite this, pooled analysis of 33 studies revealed improvement in the primary outcome. Future work needs to shift from asking, 'does it work?' to 'what works best and at what cost?'

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015024757.

Towards a systematic approach for (de)implementation of patient blood management strategies

Despite the increasing availability of evidence in transfusion medicine literature, this evidence does not automatically find its way into practice. This is also applicable to patient blood management (PBM). It may concern the lack of implementation of effective new techniques or treatments, or it may apply to the (over)use of techniques and treatments (e.g. inappropriate transfusions) that have proven to be of limited benefit for patients (low-value care) and could be abandoned (de-implementation). In PBM literature, the implementation of restrictive transfusion thresholds and the de-implementation of inappropriate transfusions are described. However, most implementation strategies were not preceded by the identification of relevant barriers, and the used strategies were not often supported by literature on behavioural changes. In this article, we describe implementation vs de-implementation, highlight the current situation of (de)implementation in PBM and describe a systematic approach for (de)implementation illustrated by an example of a PBM de-implementation study regarding '(cost-) effective patient blood management in total hip and knee arthroplasty'. The systematic approach used for (de)implementation is based on the implementation model of Grol, which consists of the following five steps: the detection of improvement goals, a problem analysis, the selection of (de)implementation strategies, the execution of the (de)implementation strategy and an evaluation. Based on the description of the current situation and the experiences in our de-implementation study, we can conclude that de-implementation may be more difficult than expected as other factors may play a role in effective de-implementation compared to implementation.

Hemodialysis patients' preferences for the management of anemia

Background

Patient engagement in end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is expected to result in a more patient-centered approach to care that aligns with patients’ values, preferences, and goals for treatment. Nevertheless, no previous studies of which we are aware have evaluated patients’ benefit-risk preferences for the management of anemia associated with ESRD. The primary objective of this study was to quantify the tradeoffs patients are willing to make between cardiovascular risks associated with some anemia medicines and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions. A secondary objective was to quantify the importance of avoiding transfusion-related risks.

Methods

A survey instrument was developed from the clinical literature, clinician input, patient-education resources, and a patient focus group. The survey instrument was qualitatively pretested before its administration to a broader sample of patients. The National Kidney Foundation invited individuals in the United States to participate in the survey. In a discrete-choice experiment (DCE), respondents chose between two hypothetical anemia medications in a series of questions. Each medication was defined by symptom relief, frequency of transfusions, cardiovascular risk, mode of administration, and out-of-pocket cost. The survey also included a best-worst scaling (BWS) exercise to quantify the importance of avoiding attributes of blood transfusions. Results from the DCE were used to estimate relative importance and marginal willingness to pay. Results from the BWS were converted to relative importance weights.

Results

A total of 200 individuals completed the survey. Patients were willing to accept a 6% medication-related risk of heart attack to avoid having two RBC transfusions per month. Symptom relief and mode of administration were of moderate importance. The most important transfusion-related risk to avoid was transfusion-related lung injury.

Conclusions

Patients with ESRD and anemia have measurable treatment preferences and are willing to accept risks associated with anemia medications to avoid transfusions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12882-017-0664-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

What is appropriate care? An integrative review of emerging themes in the literature

Background

Health care improvement efforts should be aligned in order to make a meaningful impact on health systems. Appropriate care delivery could be a unifying goal to help coordinate efforts to improve health outcomes and ensure system sustainability. A more complete understanding of how appropriate care is currently conceived in research and clinical practice could help inform a more integrated and holistic concept of appropriate care that could guide health care policy and delivery practices. We examined the current understanding of appropriate care by identifying its use and definitions in recently published literature.

Methods

An integrated review of the practices, goals and perspectives of appropriate care in English language peer-reviewed articles published from 2011 to 2016. Inductive content analysis was used to describe emerging themes of appropriate care in articles meeting inclusion criteria.

Results

This integrative review included empirical studies, reviews, and commentaries with various health care settings, cultural contexts, and perspectives. Conceptualizations of appropriate care varied, however most descriptions fell into five main categories: evidence-based care, clinical expertise, patient-centeredness, resource use, and equity. These categories were often used in combination, indicating an integrated understanding of appropriate care.

Conclusions

An understanding of how appropriate care is conceptualized in research and policy can help inform an integrated approach to appropriate care delivery in policy and practice according to the relevant priorities and circumstances.

Where now for transfusion: the evolution of a paradigm and its logical progression

The development of transfusion over the past century and a half has been described as one of the blessings of modern medicine. But, in some ways, it is emerging as a decidedly mixed blessing, bringing epidemics as well as improved health. Given all the practice has been through, now is the right time to take a critical look at blood transfusion as it is practiced today, and whether it serves the individual patient as effectively as the interests of those who administer it.