Improving the use of intravenous antihypertensive medications in the hospital setting: a quality improvement initiative for patient safety

Reduction of Intravenous Antihypertensives through Clinical Decision Support in a Large Safety Net System

BACKGROUND

Asymptomatic severe hypertension (also known as hypertensive urgency) is frequently encountered in the hospital. Previous evidence suggests that management with one-time doses of intravenous (IV) antihypertensives may increase adverse events. Despite this, single-dose treatment remains common in the emergency department and inpatient settings.

METHODS

This quality initiative was launched at New York City Health + Hospitals, the largest safety net hospital system in the United States. The initiative involved two changes to electronic orders for IV hydralazine and IV labetalol: a nonintrusive advisory statement within the order instructions and a mandatory requirement to document the indication for IV antihypertensive use.

RESULTS

This initiative took place from November 2021 to October 2022. Of the indications selected for IV antihypertensive orders, 60.7% were for hypertensive emergency, 15.3% were for patients who were strictly NPO, 21.2% were for other, and 2.8% selected more than one indication. For ED-only encounters, aggregate IV hydralazine and IV labetalol orders per 1,000 patient encounters were 2.53 preintervention and 1.55 postintervention (38.7% reduction, p < 0.001). For inpatient encounters, aggregate IV hydralazine and IV labetalol orders per 1,000 patient-days were 18.25 preintervention and 15.81 postintervention (13.4% reduction, p < 0.001). Similar trends were observed for individual orders of IV hydralazine and IV labetalol. There were significant reductions in 7 of the 11 hospitals in inpatient administration of aggregate IV hydralazine and labetalol orders per 1,000 patient-days.

CONCLUSION

This quality improvement initiative successfully reduced unnecessary IV antihypertensive use in an 11-hospital safety net system.

Impact of Intravenous Antihypertensives on Outcomes Among Hospitalized Patients

BACKGROUND

Many hospitalized patients with acute elevations in blood pressure (BP) are treated with intravenous (IV) antihypertensive medications without evidence of benefit. This study investigated the effects of IV as-needed (PRN) antihypertensives on BP, hospital length of stay, and mortality.

METHODS

We included hospitalized patients with an order for an IV PRN antihypertensive medication. We excluded patients with target organ damage. We performed multivariate analysis to assess whether the medication was independently associated with outcomes.

RESULTS

1,784 out of 5,680 patients (31%) had an administration of the PRN medication. Patients who received the medication had a longer hospital stay compared with patients with an order for the medication who did not receive it (4.9 ± 6.1 vs. 3.1 ± 4.1 days, P < 0.001). This remained statistically significant after adjusting for covariates. In-hospital mortality was higher in the group that received the medication (3.3% vs. 1.6%, P < 0.001), but this was not statistically significant on multivariate analysis. IV hydralazine caused the most significant reduction in BP and led to a shorter length of stay when compared with enalapril and labetalol. A total of 62% of patients received the medication for a systolic BP lower than 180 mm Hg.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating hypertension in the in-patient setting remains complex. Rapid lowering of BP can cause harm to patients, and this study showed that antihypertensive medication increased hospital length of stay. Once assuring no target organ damage, a strategic approach should be to treat modifiable factors and gradually reduce BP.

IMPACT OF PLAN-DO-STUDY-ACT CYCLES ON THE REDUCTION OF ERRORS RELATED TO VACCINE ADMINISTRATION

ABSTRACT Objective: to evaluate the impact of a quality improvement program in the reduction of errors related to vaccine administration. Method: an intervention study aimed at comparing outcome measures before (Phase I) and after (Phase II) the implementation of a quality improvement program. It was carried out in a Basic Health Unit in the inland of São Paulo from March 2019 to November 2019. In the first phase, there was direct observation by Nursing professionals during the preparation and administration of the doses. In the second phase, an error was selected and subjected to four Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to test the changes. The following quality tools were also used: root cause analysis, Ishikawa diagram and Pareto diagram. Results: a total of 164 doses of vaccines prepared and administered to 51 users were observed; 527 errors were identified and categorized into 13 types. In 27.7% of the observations made in Phase I, the users/guardians were not informed about potential adverse reactions. The goal of 100% of guidelines was established over an eight-month period, which was achieved in the second Plan-Do-Study-Act cycle and maintained in the third and fourth cycles, with confirmed improvement in the process. Conclusion: the quality improvement approach, based on Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, contributed to the reduction of errors in the administration of vaccines and the change was sustainable, as it maintained over time.