Search

BackgroundHeart failure is a prevailing diagnosis of hospitalization and readmission within 6 months, and nearly a quarter of these patients die within a year. Guideline-directed medication therapies reduce risk of mortality by 73% over 2 years; however, the implementation of these therapies to their target dose in clinical practice continues to be challenging. In 2020, the Veterans Affairs (VA) Health Care System developed a HF dashboard to monitor and improve outpatient HF management. The DASH-HF (Dashboard Activated Services and Telehealth for Heart Failure) study is a randomized, pragmatic clinical trial to evaluate proactive dashboard-directed telehealth clinics to improve the use and dosing of guideline-directed medication therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction not on optimal guideline-directed medication therapy within the VA.MethodsThree hundred veterans with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction met inclusion criteria with an optimization potential score (OPS) of 5 or less out of 10, representing nonoptimal guideline-directed medication therapy. The primary outcome was a composite score of guideline-directed medical therapy, the OPS, 6 months after the end of the intervention. Secondary outcomes included active prescriptions for each individual guideline-directed medical therapy class, HF-related hospitalizations, deaths, and clinician time per patient during the intervention clinics.ResultsThere was no significant difference between the intervention arm and usual care group in the primary outcome (OPS, 2.9; SD=2.1 versus OPS, 2.6, SD=2.1); adjusted mean difference 0.3 (95% CI, -0.1 to 0.7) or in the prespecified secondary outcomes for hospitalization and all-cause mortality for the intervention of proactive dashboard-based clinics.ConclusionsA dashboard-based clinic intervention did not improve the OPS or secondary outcomes of hospitalization and all-cause mortality. There remains a larger opportunity to better target patients and provide more intensive follow-up to further evaluate the utility of proactive dashboard-based clinics for HF management and quality improvement.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT05001165.

BackgroundGaps in the receipt and dosing of guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) persist for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) [1]. In 2020, the Veterans Affairs (VA) developed a heart failure (HF) specific population dashboard to monitor care quality and performance on standard HFrEF performance measures [2].MethodsThe Dashboard Activated Services and Telehealth for HF (DASH-HF) study is a pragmatic randomized quality improvement study designed to evaluate the utility of proactive population management clinics using the VA's HF dashboard to optimize GDMT for patients with HFrEF. Panel management telemedicine clinics incorporated multidisciplinary clinicians to perform chart review and impromptu telephone encounters to evaluate current HFrEF management and opportunities to optimize GDMT. The study will evaluate the efficacy of proactive panel management to usual care at 6 months as quantified by the GDMT optimization potential score. Secondary outcomes include hospitalizations, mortality, and clinician time per intervention. The study completed enrollment and randomization of 300 participants. The intervention was performed from September to December 2021.ConclusionDASH-HF will contribute to the literature by evaluating use of the existing VA dashboard to identify HF patients with the lowest adherence to GDMT and proactively target this group for the intervention.Registrationhttps://clinicaltrials.gov/. Unique identifier: NCT05001165.

Background Despite improved outcomes associated with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS), many studies have demonstrated slow adoption of ticagrelor in the United States because of its increased cost. Less is known about how ticagrelor is adopted when there is no added cost consideration. Our objectives were to determine patterns of use of ticagrelor, hospital-level adoption of ticagrelor use, and factors associated with its use after ACS in a publicly funded health care system. Methods and Results We conducted a population-based cohort study including patients (≥65 years) hospitalized with their first ACS from April 2014 to March 2018 in Ontario, Canada. We determined temporal trends in ticagrelor use and hospital-level adoption of its use post-ACS discharge. Using hierarchical regression models, we identified significant predictors of ticagrelor use. There were 23 962 patients with ACS (mean age 76.3 years, 59.7% men) hospitalized in 156 hospitals. Overall ticagrelor use increased from 32.6% in 2014/2015 to 51.8% in 2017/2018. There was substantial variation in ticagrelor use post-ACS across hospitals, with hospital-specific prescribing rates ranging from 0% to 83.6%. Lower odds of ticagrelor use was associated with advanced age and the presence of comorbidities. Besides patient factors, being admitted to a rurally located hospital more than halved the odds of being prescribed ticagrelor (odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.32-0.77). Being managed by a cardiologist during the index ACS hospitalization was associated with higher odds of having a ticagrelor prescription after ACS (OR, 2.80; 95% CI, 2.36-3.33). Conclusions Ticagrelor use rates varied substantially across hospitals and were strongly associated with physician and hospital factors independent of patient characteristics.

BackgroundAdmission medication history (AMH) errors frequently cause medication order errors and patient harm.ObjectiveTo quantify AMH error reduction achieved when pharmacy staff obtain AMHs before admission medication orders (AMO) are placed.MethodsThis was a three-arm randomised controlled trial of 306 inpatients. In one intervention arm, pharmacists, and in the second intervention arm, pharmacy technicians, obtained initial AMHs prior to admission. They obtained and reconciled medication information from multiple sources. All arms, including the control arm, received usual AMH care, which included variation in several common processes. The primary outcome was severity-weighted mean AMH error score. To detect AMH errors, all patients received reference standard AMHs, which were compared with intervention and control group AMHs. AMH errors and resultant AMO errors were independently identified and rated by ≥2 investigators as significant, serious or life threatening. Each error was assigned 1, 4 or 9 points, respectively, to calculate severity-weighted AMH and AMO error scores for each patient.ResultsPatient characteristics were similar across arms (mean±SD age 72±16 years, number of medications 15±7). Analysis was limited to 278 patients (91%) with reference standard AMHs. Mean±SD AMH errors per patient in the usual care, pharmacist and technician arms were 8.0±5.6, 1.4±1.9 and 1.5±2.1, respectively (p

ObjectiveWe sought to assess the potential of a widely available source of electronic medication data to prevent medication history errors and resultant inpatient order errors.MethodsWe used admission medication history (AMH) data from a recent clinical trial that identified 1017 AMH errors and 419 resultant inpatient order errors among 194 hospital admissions of predominantly older adult patients on complex medication regimens. Among the subset of patients for whom we could access current Surescripts electronic pharmacy claims data (SEPCD), two pharmacists independently assessed error severity and our main outcome, which was whether SEPCD (1) was unrelated to the medication error; (2) probably would not have prevented the error; (3) might have prevented the error; or (4) probably would have prevented the error.ResultsSeventy patients had both AMH errors and current, accessible SEPCD. SEPCD probably would have prevented 110 (35%) of 315 AMH errors and 46 (31%) of 147 resultant inpatient order errors. When we excluded the least severe medication errors, SEPCD probably would have prevented 99 (47%) of 209 AMH errors and 37 (61%) of 61 resultant inpatient order errors. SEPCD probably would have prevented at least one AMH error in 42 (60%) of 70 patients.ConclusionWhen current SEPCD was available for older adult patients on complex medication regimens, it had substantial potential to prevent AMH errors and resultant inpatient order errors, with greater potential to prevent more severe errors. Further study is needed to measure the benefit of SEPCD in actual use at hospital admission.

BackgroundMedication non-adherence is prevalent. We assessed the effect of electronic prescribing (e-prescribing) with formulary decision support on preferred formulary tier usage, copayment, and concomitant adherence.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 14,682 initial pharmaceutical claims for angiotensin receptor blocker and inhaled steroid medications among 14,410 patients of 2189 primary care physicians (PCPs) who were offered e-prescribing with formulary decision support, including 297 PCPs who adopted it. Formulary decision support was initially non-interruptive, such that formulary tier symbols were displayed adjacent to medication names. Subsequently, interruptive formulary decision support alerts also interrupted e-prescribing when preferred-tier alternatives were available. A difference in differences design was used to compare the pre-post differences in medication tier for each new prescription attributed to non-adopters, low user (30% usage rate). Second, we modeled the effect of formulary tier on prescription copayment. Last, we modeled the effect of copayment on adherence (proportion of days covered) to each new medication.ResultsCompared with non-adopters, high users of e-prescribing were more likely to prescribe preferred-tier medications (vs. non-preferred tier) when both non-interruptive and interruptive formulary decision support were in place (OR 1.9 [95% CI 1.0-3.4], p = 0.04), but no more likely to prescribe preferred-tier when only non-interruptive formulary decision support was in place (p = 0.90). Preferred-tier claims had only slightly lower mean monthly copayments than non-preferred tier claims (angiotensin receptor blocker: $10.60 versus $11.81, inhaled steroid: $14.86 versus $16.42, p