• David R Vinson, Dustin G Mark, Uli K Chettipally, Jie Huang, Adina S Rauchwerger, Mary E Reed, James S Lin, Mamata V Kene, David H Wang, Dana R Sax, Tamara S Pleshakov, Ian D McLachlan, Cyrus K Yamin, Andrew R Elms, Hilary R Iskin, Ridhima Vemula, Donald M Yealy, Dustin W Ballard, and eSPEED Investigators of the KP CREST Network.
• The Permanente Medical Group and Kaiser Permanente Northern California, Oakland, and Kaiser Permanente Sacramento Medical Center, Sacramento, California (D.R.V.).
• Ann. Intern. Med. 2018 Dec 18; 169 (12): 855-865.

BackgroundMany low-risk patients with acute pulmonary embolism (PE) in the emergency department (ED) are eligible for outpatient care but are hospitalized nonetheless. One impediment to home discharge is the difficulty of identifying which patients can safely forgo hospitalization.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of an integrated electronic clinical decision support system (CDSS) to facilitate risk stratification and decision making at the site of care for patients with acute PE.DesignControlled pragmatic trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03601676).SettingAll 21 community EDs of an integrated health care delivery system (Kaiser Permanente Northern California).PatientsAdult ED patients with acute PE.InterventionTen intervention sites selected by convenience received a multidimensional technology and education intervention at month 9 of a 16-month study period (January 2014 to April 2015); the remaining 11 sites served as concurrent controls.MeasurementsThe primary outcome was discharge to home from either the ED or a short-term (<24-hour) outpatient observation unit based in the ED. Adverse outcomes included return visits for PE-related symptoms within 5 days and recurrent venous thromboembolism, major hemorrhage, and all-cause mortality within 30 days. A difference-in-differences approach was used to compare pre-post changes at intervention versus control sites, with adjustment for demographic and clinical characteristics.ResultsAmong 881 eligible patients diagnosed with PE at intervention sites and 822 at control sites, adjusted home discharge increased at intervention sites (17.4% pre- to 28.0% postintervention) without a concurrent increase at control sites (15.1% pre- and 14.5% postintervention). The difference-in-differences comparison was 11.3 percentage points (95% CI, 3.0 to 19.5 percentage points; P = 0.007). No increases were seen in 5-day return visits related to PE or in 30-day major adverse outcomes associated with CDSS implementation.LimitationLack of random allocation.ConclusionImplementation and structured promotion of a CDSS to aid physicians in site-of-care decision making for ED patients with acute PE safely increased outpatient management.Primary Funding SourceGarfield Memorial National Research Fund and The Permanente Medical Group Delivery Science and Physician Researcher Programs.

22 keywords...

hide…