himss virtual conference and exhibition 11/19/08 session #107b
Post on 23-Jan-2016
39 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Optimizing Local Clinical Decision Support to Address National Hospital Improvement Imperatives; Early Efforts Toward a Scalable Collaborative
HIMSS Virtual Conference and Exhibition
11/19/08Session #107B
Jerry OsheroffJohn Chuo
Anwar SirajuddinDonna Currie
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
Panel Desired Outcome/Agenda
• Desired Outcome: Attendees learn about collaborative processes and strategies that can enhance their CDS efforts and outcomes
• Agenda:1. Describe effort to build and leverage a collaborative
to support CDS-enabled improvements in hospital clinical imperatives
2. Hear from 3 of 6 organizations participating in the collaborative: why they joined, what they are doing, benefits in progress
3. 20 minutes of Q&A: to help ensure that attendees realize desired outcome
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
Background on New HIMSS Collaborative CDS Initiative, and
Implications for Attendees
Jerome A. Osheroff, MD, FACP, FACMI
Chief Clinical Informatics Officer, Thomson Reuters
Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Pennsylvania
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
Collaboration Starting Point: Shared Need and Opportunity to Improve Key Outcome
• VTE is leading cause of preventable hospital death
• Substantial costs for hospitals; beginning 10/08 CMS and other payers not reimbursing for this hospital acquired complication (and others)
• CDS is powerful tool for improving outcomes, but implementations are complex and often problematic
• HIMSS, SI, others have collaborated successfully on CDS best implementation practices
• Can we build on this success and create a dialog to accelerate local CDS-enhanced performance improvements?
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
5
www.himss.org/cdsguide
Backdrop: Guides for Improving Care Processes and Outcomes with CDS
5
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
HIMSS/SI Initiative
• Goal: Develop scalable, validated guidance for provider organizations to optimize CDS to drive measurable local performance improvement on specific targets of high local and national priority. (Initial focus=VTE)
• Formed CDS Task Force within HIMSS 8/08
• 6 clinical sites: Advocate, CHOP, HealthEast, Memorial Hermann, Orlando, Texas Health Resources
• Other thought leader participants (CDS, performance measurement, benefits realization) and Scottsdale Institute
• HIMSS/SI will help with scaling
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
Deliverables: Near Term (HIMSS 4/09)
• Description of pilot site VTE CDS activities using scalable templates and processes
• Models for successful practices’ for applying CDS to VTE (given different CIS environments)
• Feedback about each site’s gap analysis based on model practices, and plans based upon this analysis
• Ideas for scaling initiative to other topics and organizations
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
Collaboration Process: Who and Why
• Who: Mostly CMIO types and related from prior collaborative efforts; focus on PI, CDS and VTE
• Why: Implications for scaling and engaging others (such as those in the audience)
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
Collaboration Process: How
• Calls, templates, wiki
– Calls: Agree on basic strategies (project scope, deliverables, etc.)
– Templates: Standard ways of describing activities
– Wiki: Meeting schedules, develop talks
• Takes time to re-orient workflow to make best use of wiki
• Have used a few wikis/Web 2.0 over various collaborations; inevitable technical bumps in the road
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
Overall Lessons Learned (So Far)
• Does seem to be a need for and value from such collaborations (see talks to come)
• Shared goal and early sense of value driving continued participation
• Need skilled staff to support collaboration process: agenda, minutes, documents, wiki management (HIMSS providing this)
• Time management a challenge (as always) - few hours/week/organization
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
So What? Implications for You and Your Organization
• This work is manifestation of evolution toward “mass collaboration” in society (see Tapscott’s Wikinomics)
• Such best practice syntheses and collaborations can accelerate local efforts; consider jumping into the HIMSS fray and/or beginning your own collaborative
• Engaging in HIMSS CDS efforts– Review CDS guides and keep an eye on the CDS parts of
HIMSS website (e.g. www.himss.org/cdsguides)
– Send an email to David Collins (dcollins@himss.org) if you’re interested in exploring participation in the VTE collaborative when it scales later next year
About Memorial Hermann
• Memorial Hermann-TMC was recognized as one of 100 U.S. hospitals to make the greatest progress in improving hospital-wide performance over five consecutive years (2001-2005).
• For the 18th consecutive year, Memorial Hermann TIRR ranks among America’s Best Hospitals in the U.S. News & World Report magazine’s annual survey.
• Memorial Hermann Named A "Most Wired" Healthcare System for Fourth Consecutive Year in 2008
About Memorial Hermann
Memorial Hermann Fact Sheet
• Total hospitals: 14• Acute care: 9 • Children’s: 1 • Heart & Vascular: 3 • Rehabilitation: 1
• Regional affiliates: 21 • Managed acute care hospitals: 4 • Sports Medicine & Rehabilitation Centers: 27 • Retirement/nursing center: 1 • Home health agency: 1 • Annual emergency visits: 323,258 • Annual deliveries: 21,536 • Annual Life Flight air ambulance missions: 3,185 • Employees: 19,012 • Beds (licensed): 3,286 • Medical staff members: 4,194 • Residency programs: 26 | Fellowship programs: 48 • Physicians in training: 1,324 (physicians and fellows) • Annual community benefit: $229,152,000
22,000+ devices connected to the enterprise network from 80 different locations
4 data centers, 1 mainframe, 43 mid-range UNIX/VMS systems, 1000+ servers, 16,836 PCs, 5,023
printers, 561 scanners, 21 handheld devices
22,400+ calls per month to the Support Center
264,000 sessions per month on memorialhermann.org
24,600+ Exchange Email user accounts
12 million spam emails & 91,000+ network attacks blocked each month
173 formal assigned projects
56 telephone systems – 28,000+ phones, 8,000+ pagers, 2,434 Spectralink phones
5.69 million unique person records in CARE4 with 17,654 total users
9,289 unique physician users to CARE4 monthly
300+ applications supported by ISD
365 FTEs in the ISD organization and 106 located in the hospitals (471 total)
$20M capital budget and $59.5M expense budget in FY 09
3000+ Information Security access requests per month
Memorial Hermann IT Fact Sheet
VTE & Clinical Decision Support
Why are we participating?
• Part of first collaborative effort
• Experiences and best practices
• Useful tool for CDS implementers
Next Collaborative Effort
• Utilize principles from new guide
• Create scalable CDS models of best practice for different clinical conditions/diagnoses
• We almost missed the bus!
Why VTE?
• Significant cause of morbidity and mortality despite the availability of effective therapies for prophylaxis
• Non-reimbursement from CMS/other payers
Challenges to collaboration
• Getting everyone together at the same time!
• Using Wiki
• Overcame these challenges!
Our Objectives
• Learn the different processes
• Identify what would best work for us
• Share our experiences
• Outcomes
What are we doing today?Memorial Hermann
• Using online tool within EMR
• Risk Assessment
• Recommended Prophylaxis
• All inpatients greater than 17 yrs
• Physician completes risk assessment and orders prophylaxis
• Nursing monitors compliance
What are we doing today?Other Organizations
• Different organizations are quite different:– VTE prevention initiative– CIS implementation– Different process
One single goalOptimizing CDS to Prevent and Treat
VTE
Key Take Away Points
• Our process is more physician driven
• VTE Outcome Metrics
Next Steps for Project
• Continue to work on identifying core CDS elements that can be scalable across different organizations
• Identify best practices
• Implement best practices
• Do these best practices work?
Children’s Hospital of PhiladelphiaChildren’s Hospital of Philadelphia
Clinical Decision Support forClinical Decision Support for
VTE PreventionVTE Prevention
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
• 430 beds
• 34 sub specialties
• Nearly 50 Sites within the CHOP network
• HIS:-Sunrise Clinical Manager, Manual access database for reporting (CS Stars safetyNET)-EPIC
• CDS related governance overview- Executive Council of the medical staff --- ECMS IS --- CDS subcommittee
For the 6th consecutive year, CHOP ranks as the number one Children’s Hospital in the U.S. News & World Report magazine’s
annual survey.
About CHOPAbout CHOP
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
• Hospital acquired VTE is potentially life-threatening and may; -Prolong length of hospital stay -Require invasive treatment -Result in chronic disability, the need for follow-up care and long-term anticoagulation
• Overall risk of VTE in children is much lower than in adults, but children often have multiple risk factors
• Cases of hospital acquired VTE have occurred at CHOP
Why is VTE prevention Important?Why is VTE prevention Important?
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Improvement AimImprovement Aim
•To reduce the potential for harm through the use of mechanical and chemoprophylaxis by increasing the compliance with the clinical practice guidelines to > 90% by February 2009.
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
1. Are we assessing everyone who is at risk?
2. Are we treating everyone who is at risk?
3. Has treatment reduced the incidence of VTE?
Key QuestionsKey Questions
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
MINIMIZEthese groups
MAXIMIZEthese groups
+ VTE - VTE
- VTE
+ VTE - VTE+ VTE - VTE
ALL ADMISSIONS
Assessed with Risk score tool Not assessed with Risk score tool
At risk Not at risk
Prophylaxis No Prophylaxis
+ VTE
OUTCOME MATRIXOUTCOME MATRIX
WHAT IS RISK and can it be stratified?
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
<1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 >21
Age (Years)
N=185
Nu
mb
er o
f P
atie
nts
After the newborn period, an increase is seen at approx. 14 yrs
Age Distribution of Patients with Venous Age Distribution of Patients with Venous Thrombosis at CHOPThrombosis at CHOP
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Infection
Surgery
Cancer
Cardiac
Renal
DiabetesSickle Cell Disease
Prematurity
Cystic Fibrosis
Trauma
Other
None
Dehydration
This does not include the presence of a central venous catheter, which is the single greatest risk factor for thrombosis - found in ~40% of children over age 1 with a DVT
Underlying Medical Conditions in Children with Underlying Medical Conditions in Children with ThrombosisThrombosis
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
• Immobility
• Orthopedic surgery
• Spinal cord injury
• Major trauma or trauma to the lower extremities
• Previous history of thrombosis / VTE
• Pregnancy
• Taking estrogen containing medications
• Acute infection
• Burns
• Obesity
• Disorder associated with thrombosis including but not limited to; Inflammatory Bowel Disease, Nephrotic Syndrome, Sickle Cell Disease, Lupus and Diabetic Keto-Acidosis
• Central venous catheter in the lower extremity
• Acquired or inherited thrombophilia
• Family history of thrombosis in a first degree relative < 40 years of age
At RISK patients are > 14 years old and have one or more of the listed conditions
RISK assessment toolRISK assessment tool
At HIGH RISK patients are > 14 years old, immobile, and have one or more additional conditions
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Defining risk
groups
Execution How well executed is
the tool?
Outcome
PAPER Retrospective chart review, consensus, adult literature
Risk assessment tool is incorporated into the nursing admission intake paperwork
Are paper forms of the tool readily available?
Do people know how to use it?
Is there accountability?
How many risk assessments are done?
TECH Work underway for: Point of care reminders in selected ordersets to remind prescribers to assess risk. i.e. preop ordersets. The tool itself will be computerized.
RISK assessment tool - executionRISK assessment tool - execution
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
+ VTE - VTE
- VTE
+ VTE - VTE+ VTE - VTE
ALL ADMISSIONS
Assessed with Risk score tool Not assessed with Risk score tool
At risk Not at risk
Prophylaxis No Prophylaxis
+ VTE
OUTCOME MATRIXOUTCOME MATRIX
WHAT IS TREATMENT and can it be proven?
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
• Treatment must …1. Impact outcome (less VTE for at risk patients)
2. Safe
3. Determined by ….• Research • Published standards - from adult literature• Consensus – Anticoagulant workgroup• Randomized trials requires large numbers
- Venograms too invasive, U/S technology and MRI not good enough
The Challenge of TreatmentThe Challenge of Treatment
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
• A Patient who is at RISK or HIGH RISK receives one or more forms of mechanical thromboprophylaxis*
•Early ambulation within 12 hours
•Pneumatic compression device*
•Graduated compression “antiembolic” stockings (Teds)
• A patient who is at HIGH RISK receives one or more forms of mechanical prophylaxis and may also receive anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin (Enoxaparin) or unfractionated heparin
* Mechanical prophylaxis is not used if acute VTE is suspected
Treatment GuidelineTreatment Guideline
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Define treatment
Execution How well executed
is the process?
Outcome
PAPER Literature review, consensus, adult protocols
TECH - VTE prophylaxis order set containing mechanical and chemoprophylaxis - Nursing staff has the ability to initiate mech. prophylaxis
Ordersets awareness?
Ordersets usability?
How often is prophylaxis initiated?
What % of those assessed to be at risk received prophylaxis and how do their VTE rates compare with the other groups?
Treatment - executionTreatment - execution
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Other key Measures for chemoprophylaxisOther key Measures for chemoprophylaxis
•Compliance with …
-Baseline laboratory monitoring (enoxaparin, heparin, warfarin)
-Dosage adjustment algorithms and monitoring guidelines (enoxaparin, heparin, warfarin)
-Discharge Education and scheduled follow-up appointment (enoxaparin, warfarin)
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
ALL ADMISSIONS
Assessed with Risk score tool Not assessed with Risk score tool
+VTE -VTEAt risk Not at risk
Prophylaxis No Prophylaxis
+VTE -VTE
+VTE -VTE+VTE -VTE
= obtain from querying Hospital Information System
OUTCOME MATRIXOUTCOME MATRIX
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
• We share the same challenges and have common strategies for overcoming the hurdles of technology, culture, and clinical evidence.
• Risk assessment- We all stratify risk, some calculating a score.- Initial assessment - some done by nursing, some by physicians (about 50/50)- All working on electronic tool, but most using paper tools- Electronic alert triggers seems to be a good idea as reminder systems
• VTE Prophylaxis- Order sets is the most popular way to group VTE related orders- Some embed the order sets into existing ordersets associated with high risk populations- Prompts to reminder clinicians to order VTE prophylaxis is a more difficult task than dose guidelines.
• VTE prophylaxis Complication prevention and outcome measures- Compliance with guideline is a commonly measured metric among our group- Prompts for appropriate labs is doable (i.e. INR)
• Improvement is temporally related to project activities and tapers off between activities.
• To hard-code practices into daily routine, it is necessary to insert continuous prompts at the point of care
• Buy-in from and a sense of responsibility by front-line clinicians positively impacts the use of VTE prophylaxis
• Identifying stakeholders is critical for success
Lessons learned from workgroupLessons learned from workgroup
The Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
Anticoagulant WorkgroupAnticoagulant Workgroup
• Leslie Raffini, MD, Hematology
• Robert J. Mullen, PharmD, CQPS
• Tara Trimarchi, RN, Chair of CDS Committee
• Catherine Manno, MD
• Daniela Davis, MD
• Kathryn Roberts, RN, MSN, CRNP
• Amy Gallagher, PharmD, MS
• Lori Kramer, RN, MSN
• Sarah Erush, PharmD, BCPS
• Marilyn Blumenstein, RN, MSN
• Maria Mihalko, RN, MSN,
• Donna Schilling, BS, RT
• Jackie Evans, MD
• Jack Rome, MD (consultant)
Venous ThromboembolismVenous Thromboembolism (VTE)(VTE)
DONNA CURRIE, MSN, RN DONNA CURRIE, MSN, RN DIRECTOR, CLINICAL OUTCOMESDIRECTOR, CLINICAL OUTCOMESADVOCATE HEALTH CAREADVOCATE HEALTH CARE
ADVOCATE HEALTH CAREADVOCATE HEALTH CAREFaith based health care systemLargest fully integrated not-for-profit
health care delivery system in metropolitan Chicago
Organization◦ 8 hospitals (soon to be 9)◦ 3,500 beds ◦ Home Health Care ◦ 3 large Physician Groups◦ More than 200 sites of care.
25,000 employed associatesMore than 4,600 affiliated physicians Hybrid Medical Record
WHY WE PARTICIPATE WHY WE PARTICIPATE IN THE CDS PROJECTIN THE CDS PROJECT
To learn from othersTo share information with other
participantsTo share information broadly To identify opportunities for creative
solutions to common challenges
APPROACH TO VTE APPROACH TO VTE PROPHYLAXISPROPHYLAXIS
Six Sigma approach at 3/8 sitesSystem level interdisciplinary teamEMR site liaison participation ACCP GuidelinesAssessment guidelinesElectronic assessment toolProphylaxis GuidelinesLocal CDS committee
◦ VTE Alert #1 – MD alert for orders based on score
◦ VTE Alert #2 – Proposed alert for adequacy of prophylaxis
VTE PATIENT RISK ASSESSMENT VTE PATIENT RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDELINESGUIDELINES
Purpose
Provide a consistent process for assessing the risk of VTE in medical and/or surgical patients.
Assessment Guidelines
- Within 8 hours of admission to the hospital
- With a change in level of care
- Post operatively for inpatient surgical patients
- Pre operatively for all surgical patients
- Notify the MD of the VTE risk assessment results, suggested VTE prophylaxis and obtain orders within 12 hours of admission to the hospital.
VTE PROPHYLAXIS GUIDELINESVTE PROPHYLAXIS GUIDELINES PLEASE NOTE: These are GUIDELINES for the Prophylaxis of VTE. This
is NOT an order set. Please contact the patient’s physician for orders
VTE Prophylaxis GuidelinesGeneral • DO NOT USE ASPIRIN AS PROPHYLAXIS AGAINST VTE
• Discharge with LMWH for high risk general surgery patients; major cancer surgery• Avoid thromboprophylaxis in vascular surgery patients with no additional risk factors
Low (1) • Early & Persistent mobilization
Moderate (2) • Enoxaparin (Lovenox) 40 mg (If CrCI< 30mL/min = 30 mg) SubQ every 24 hours OR • Fondaparinux (Arixtra) 2.5 mg SubQ daily † (Do not use if CrCl< 30 mL/min or weight< 50 kg) OR • Heparin, 5,000 Units SubQ every 12 hours CONSIDER ADDING§ • GCS and/or IPC in addition to one of the above or if high risk of bleeding
High (3-4) • Enoxaparin (Lovenox) 40 mg (If CrCI< 30mL/min = 30 mg) SubQ every 24 hours OR • Fondaparinux (Arixtra) 2.5mg SubQ daily† (Do not use if CrCl< 30 mL/min or weight< 50 kg) OR • Heparin, 5,000 Units SubQ every 8 hours CONSIDER ADDING§ • GCS and/or IPC in addition to one of the above or if high risk of bleeding
Highest (> 5) • Enoxaparin (Lovenox) 30 mg Sub Q every 12 hours (If CrCl< 30 mL/min = 30 mg daily) OR • Fondaparinux (Arixtra) 2.5mg SubQ daily† (Do not use if CrCl< 30 mL/min or weight< 50 kg) OR • Heparin 5000 units Sub Q every 8 hours AND§ • GCS and/or IPC in addition to one of the above
† Approved for thromboprophylaxis in certain surgical patients§ GCS = Graduated Compression Stockings IPC = Intermittent pneumatic compression
MEASURESMEASURESOutcome Measure
◦ AHRQ measureActual post-op PE/DVT rate /expected post op PE/ DVT rate
Compliance (Process) Measures ◦ Risk assessment completion rates◦ Time from admission to VTE risk assessment ◦ Time from admission to prophylaxis orders ◦ Risk assessments by risk category
Low – 19% Moderate – 14% High – 28% Highest – 39%
DRILL DOWN AT ONE SITEDRILL DOWN AT ONE SITE
Overall 64% medical vs. 36% surgical
65% of patients scored High or Highest Risk
30% of all DVT/PE cases reviewed grouped into a circulatory MDC◦ ¼ of these were
bypass w/o cath◦ 83% did not receive
optimal prophylaxis
Count 1 1 112 6 6 4 3 2 2 2
Percent 2.5 2.5 2.530.0 15.0 15.0 10.0 7.5 5.0 5.0 5.0Cum % 95.0 97.5 100.030.0 45.0 60.0 70.0 77.5 82.5 87.5 92.5
40
30
20
10
0
100
80
60
40
20
0
Count
Perc
ent
Pareto Chart of MDC
PROGRAM ANALYSISPROGRAM ANALYSIS
Advantages◦ Standardized
Approach to VTE prophylaxis Tools Measures
Opportunities
◦ Improve adequacy of prophylaxis
◦ Improve physician participation in the process
ANALYSIS OF CDS ANALYSIS OF CDS PARTICPATIONPARTICPATION
Collaborative and iterative process – a different way to work together
Learning from multiple, diverse organizations
Develop creative, “Best Practice” processes
Share information to continually improve practices
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
Topics for Discussion
• How are you addressing these issues (applying CDS toward improvement priorities)?
• What are greatest CDS challenges, successes, needs?
• Role for such a collaborative in your efforts?
• Other thoughts/questions?
©20
08 J
erom
e O
sher
off
More Information---
Chair - HIMSS CDS Task Force Jerry Osheroff, MD
Jerry.Osheroff@thomsonreuters.com
HIMSS Staff LiaisonDavid Collins
Director, Healthcare Information Systems
dcollins@himss.org
top related