Search

Objective The HEART Pathway is an evidence-based decision tool for identifying emergency department (ED) patients with acute chest pain who are candidates for early discharge, to reduce unhelpful and potentially harmful hospitalizations. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, we sought to identify important barriers and facilitators to implementation of the HEART Pathway. Study setting Data were collected at 4 academic medical centers. Study design We conducted semi-structured interviews with 25 key stakeholders (e.g., health system leaders, ED physicians). We conducted interviews before implementation of the HEART Pathway tool to identify potential barriers and facilitators to successful adoption at other regional academic medical centers. We also conducted postimplementation interviews at 1 medical center, to understand factors that contributed to successful adoption. Data collection Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. We used a Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework-driven deductive approach for coding and analysis. Principal findings Potential barriers to implementation include time and resource burden, challenges specific to the electronic health record, sustained communication with and engagement of stakeholders, and patient concerns. Facilitators to implementation include strength of evidence for reduced length of stay and unnecessary testing and iatrogenic complications, ease of use, and supportive provider climate for evidence-based decision tools. Conclusions Successful dissemination of the HEART Pathway will require addressing institution-specific barriers, which includes engaging clinical and financial stakeholders. New SMART-FHIR technologies, compatible with many electronic health record systems, can overcome barriers to health systems with limited information technology resources.

Background: The HEART Pathway (history, ECG, age, risk factors, and initial troponin) is an accelerated diagnostic protocol designed to identify low-risk emergency department patients with chest pain for early discharge without stress testing or angiography. The objective of this study was to determine whether implementation of the HEART Pathway is safe (30-day death and myocardial infarction rate Methods: A prospective pre-post study was conducted at 3 US sites among 8474 adult emergency department patients with possible acute coronary syndrome. Patients included were ≥21 years old, investigated for possible acute coronary syndrome, and had no evidence of ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction on ECG. Accrual occurred for 12 months before and after HEART Pathway implementation from November 2013 to January 2016. The HEART Pathway accelerated diagnostic protocol was integrated into the electronic health record at each site as an interactive clinical decision support tool. After accelerated diagnostic protocol integration, ED providers prospectively used the HEART Pathway to identify patients with possible acute coronary syndrome as low risk (appropriate for early discharge without stress testing or angiography) or non-low risk (appropriate for further in-hospital evaluation). The primary safety and effectiveness outcomes, death, and myocardial infarction (MI) and hospitalization rates at 30 days were determined from health records, insurance claims, and death index data. Results: Preimplementation and postimplementation cohorts included 3713 and 4761 patients, respectively. The HEART Pathway identified 30.7% as low risk; 0.4% of these patients experienced death or MI within 30 days. Hospitalization at 30 days was reduced by 6% in the postimplementation versus preimplementation cohort (55.6% versus 61.6%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.71–0.87). During the index visit, more MIs were detected in the postimplementation cohort (6.6% versus 5.7%; adjusted odds ratio, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12–1.65). Rates of death or MI during follow-up were similar (1.1% versus 1.3%; adjusted odds ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.58–1.33). Conclusions: HEART Pathway implementation was associated with decreased hospitalizations, increased identification of index visit MIs, and a very low death and MI rate among low-risk patients. These findings support use of the HEART Pathway to identify low-risk patients who can be safely discharged without stress testing or angiography. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02056964.

We created and tested an educational intervention to support implementation of an institution wide QI project (the HEART Pathway) designed to improve care for patients with acute chest pain. Although online learning modules have been shown effective in imparting knowledge regarding QI projects, it is unknown whether these modules are effective across specialties and healthcare professions. Participants, including nurses, advanced practice clinicians, house staff and attending physicians (N = 486), were enrolled into an online, self-directed learning course exploring the key concepts of the HEART Pathway. The module was completed by 97% of enrollees (469/486) and 90% passed on the first attempt (422/469). Out of 469 learners, 323 completed the pretest, learning module and posttest in the correct order. Mean test scores across learners improved significantly from 74% to 89% from the pretest to the posttest. Following the intervention, the HEART Pathway was used for 88% of patients presenting to our institution with acute chest pain. Our data demonstrate that this online, self-directed learning module can improve knowledge of the HEART Pathway across specialties-paving the way for more efficient and informed care for acute chest pain patients.

Background Patients with low risk chest pain have high utilization of stress testing and cardiac imaging, but low rates of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The objective of this study was to determine if the HEART score could safely reduce objective cardiac testing in patients with low risk chest pain.

Objective: To examine the isolated and combined effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and partial liquid ventilation (PLV) on the development of ventilator-induced lung injury in an ovine model. Design: Prospective controlled animal study. Setting: University-based cardiovascular animal physiology laboratory. Subjects: Thirty-eight anesthetized supine sheep weighing 22.3 ± 2.2 kg. Interventions: Animals were ventilated for 6 hrs (respiratory rate, 15; FIO 2 , 1.0, inspiratory/expiratory ratio, 1:1) with one of five pressure-controlled strategies, expressed as peak inspiratory pressure (PIP)/PEEP: low-PIP, 25/5 cm H 2 O (n = 8); high-PIP, 50/5 cm H 2 O (n = 8); high-PIP-PLV, 50/5 cm H 2 O-PLV (n = 8); high-PEEP, 50/20 cm H 2 O (n = 7); and high-PEEP-PLV, 50/20 cm H 2 O-PLV (n = 7). Measurements and Main Results: Compared with the low-PIP control, high-PIP ventilation increased airleak, shunt, histologic evidence of lung injury, neutrophil infiltrates, and wet lung weight. Maintaining PEEP at 20 cm H 2 O or adding PLV reduced the development of physiologic shunt and dependent histologic injury indexes. Neither higher PEEP nor PLV reduced the high incidence of barotrauma observed in high-PIP animals. Conclusions: We conclude that application of PLV or PEEP at 20 cm H 2 O may improve gas exchange and afford lung protection from ventilator-induced lung injury during high-pressure mechanical ventilation in this model.