利用最佳实践咨询改善重症脑卒中患者获得专科姑息治疗的机会--一项可行性研究。

IF 0.9 Q4 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Neurohospitalist Pub Date : 2023-07-01 Epub Date: 2023-05-12 DOI:10.1177/19418744231166265
Vandana Nagpal, Marcey L Osgood, Jennifer Reidy, Rose Healy, Brian Silver
{"title":"利用最佳实践咨询改善重症脑卒中患者获得专科姑息治疗的机会--一项可行性研究。","authors":"Vandana Nagpal, Marcey L Osgood, Jennifer Reidy, Rose Healy, Brian Silver","doi":"10.1177/19418744231166265","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The American Heart Association and American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) strongly recommend specialty palliative care (PC) for all patients hospitalized with life-threatening or life-altering strokes to provide expert symptom management, improve communication, promote shared decision-making and relieve suffering. We piloted an intervention to remind physicians about high PC needs of their patients admitted with catastrophic stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We worked with colleagues from medical informatics to create a \"Best Practice Advisory\" (BPA) to recommend a goals-of-care conversation and PC consultation for patients with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 20 or more in our electronic medical record (Epic). We evaluated the impact of this BPA, after implementation, on the number and timing of PC consults and reviewed barriers to this system change.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The BPA was operational in Jan 2019. Data analysis showed that it fired for all patients with an entered NIHSS score of ≥20. Though a large portion of the BPAs (more than 90%) were acknowledged without documented reason (after selecting \"do not order\"), PC consultations per 100 patients with triggered BPA increased from the first year of implementation (11.7 in 2019) to the next 2 years (20.7 in 2020, 15.6 in 2021). Also, the providers learned to manage BPA alerts better resulting in more than 30% reduction in the number of BPA alerts fired for each patient encounter in 2020-2021 compared to 2019.</p>","PeriodicalId":46355,"journal":{"name":"Neurohospitalist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10334048/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Access to Specialist Palliative Care for Patients With Catastrophic Strokes Using Best Practice Advisory- a Feasibility Study.\",\"authors\":\"Vandana Nagpal, Marcey L Osgood, Jennifer Reidy, Rose Healy, Brian Silver\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/19418744231166265\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and purpose: </strong>The American Heart Association and American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) strongly recommend specialty palliative care (PC) for all patients hospitalized with life-threatening or life-altering strokes to provide expert symptom management, improve communication, promote shared decision-making and relieve suffering. We piloted an intervention to remind physicians about high PC needs of their patients admitted with catastrophic stroke.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We worked with colleagues from medical informatics to create a \\\"Best Practice Advisory\\\" (BPA) to recommend a goals-of-care conversation and PC consultation for patients with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 20 or more in our electronic medical record (Epic). We evaluated the impact of this BPA, after implementation, on the number and timing of PC consults and reviewed barriers to this system change.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The BPA was operational in Jan 2019. Data analysis showed that it fired for all patients with an entered NIHSS score of ≥20. Though a large portion of the BPAs (more than 90%) were acknowledged without documented reason (after selecting \\\"do not order\\\"), PC consultations per 100 patients with triggered BPA increased from the first year of implementation (11.7 in 2019) to the next 2 years (20.7 in 2020, 15.6 in 2021). Also, the providers learned to manage BPA alerts better resulting in more than 30% reduction in the number of BPA alerts fired for each patient encounter in 2020-2021 compared to 2019.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Neurohospitalist\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10334048/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Neurohospitalist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/19418744231166265\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/5/12 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neurohospitalist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/19418744231166265","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/5/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:美国心脏协会和美国卒中协会(AHA/ASA)强烈建议为所有危及生命或改变生命的卒中住院患者提供专科姑息治疗(PC),以提供专业的症状管理、改善沟通、促进共同决策和减轻痛苦。我们试行了一项干预措施,以提醒医生注意严重脑卒中住院患者对姑息治疗的高度需求:方法:我们与医学信息学的同事合作创建了一个 "最佳实践建议"(BPA),建议对电子病历(Epic)中美国国立卫生研究院卒中量表(NIHSS)评分达到或超过 20 分的患者进行护理目标谈话和 PC 咨询。我们评估了 BPA 实施后对 PC 咨询次数和时间的影响,并审查了这一系统变革的障碍:BPA 于 2019 年 1 月投入使用。数据分析显示,它适用于所有输入 NIHSS 评分≥20 分的患者。虽然很大一部分 BPA(超过 90%)是在没有记录原因的情况下确认的(在选择 "不订购 "后),但从实施的第一年(2019 年为 11.7 次)到接下来的两年(2020 年为 20.7 次,2021 年为 15.6 次),每 100 名触发 BPA 的患者的 PC 咨询次数有所增加。此外,医疗服务提供者学会了如何更好地管理 BPA 警报,因此,与 2019 年相比,2020-2021 年每次患者就诊时触发的 BPA 警报数量减少了 30% 以上。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Improving Access to Specialist Palliative Care for Patients With Catastrophic Strokes Using Best Practice Advisory- a Feasibility Study.

Background and purpose: The American Heart Association and American Stroke Association (AHA/ASA) strongly recommend specialty palliative care (PC) for all patients hospitalized with life-threatening or life-altering strokes to provide expert symptom management, improve communication, promote shared decision-making and relieve suffering. We piloted an intervention to remind physicians about high PC needs of their patients admitted with catastrophic stroke.

Methods: We worked with colleagues from medical informatics to create a "Best Practice Advisory" (BPA) to recommend a goals-of-care conversation and PC consultation for patients with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 20 or more in our electronic medical record (Epic). We evaluated the impact of this BPA, after implementation, on the number and timing of PC consults and reviewed barriers to this system change.

Results: The BPA was operational in Jan 2019. Data analysis showed that it fired for all patients with an entered NIHSS score of ≥20. Though a large portion of the BPAs (more than 90%) were acknowledged without documented reason (after selecting "do not order"), PC consultations per 100 patients with triggered BPA increased from the first year of implementation (11.7 in 2019) to the next 2 years (20.7 in 2020, 15.6 in 2021). Also, the providers learned to manage BPA alerts better resulting in more than 30% reduction in the number of BPA alerts fired for each patient encounter in 2020-2021 compared to 2019.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Neurohospitalist
Neurohospitalist CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
108
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信