Evaluation of Clinical Decision Support to Reduce Sedative-Hypnotic Prescribing in Older Adults

Objective We sought to characterize the performance of inpatient and outpatient computerized clinical decision support (CDS) alerts aimed at reducing inappropriate benzodiazepine and nonbenzodiazepine sedative medication prescribing in older adults 18 months after implementation. Methods We reviewed the performance of two CDS alerts in the outpatient and inpatient settings in 2019. To examine the alerts' effectiveness, we analyzed metrics including overall alert adherence, provider-level adherence, and reasons for alert trigger and override. Results In 2019, we identified a total of 14,534 and 4,834 alerts triggered in the outpatient and inpatient settings, respectively. Providers followed only 1% of outpatient and 3% of inpatient alerts. Most alerts were ignored (68% outpatient and 60% inpatient), while providers selected to override the remaining alerts. In each setting, the top 2% of clinicians were responsible for approximately 25% of all ignored or overridden alerts. However, a small proportion of clinicians (2% outpatient and 4% inpatient) followed the alert at least half of the time and accounted for a disproportionally large fraction of the total followed alerts. Our analysis of the free-text comments revealed that many alerts were to continue outpatient prescriptions or for situational anxiety. Conclusion Our findings highlight the importance of evaluation of CDS performance after implementation. We found large variation in response to the inpatient and outpatient alerts, both with respect to follow and ignore rates. Reevaluating the alert design by providing decision support by indication may be more helpful and may reduce alert fatigue.

Prognostic factors for adults with cardiac arrest in the emergency department: a retrospective cohort study

Cardiac arrest in the emergency department is associated with the following three scenarios: out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, primary emergency department cardiac arrest (EDCA), and patients transferred from other hospitals after the return of spontaneous circulation from cardiac arrest. Among them, the primary cardiac arrest episode in the emergency department has been less studied. This aim of this study was to explore patient characteristics and the relationship between causes of EDCA and survival outcomes according to different patient management strategies. The main finding of this study was that EDCA with Cardiogenic etiology was associated with higher survival to discharge (OR: 2.31; 95% CI: 1.59–3.91) and discharged neurological outcome (OR: 2.84; 95% CI: 1.57–5.97). More favorable discharged neurological outcome were also found in EDCA patients with initial shockable rhythm (OR: 4.83; 95% CI: 2.33–10.01) and shorter resuscitation time (≤11.5 min, OR: 3.62; 95% CI: 1.57–8.32). EDCA patients under sedative medication (OR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.10–0.59) and ventilator support by intubation before EDCA episode (OR: 0.26; 95% CI: 0.09–0.75) had poor neurological outcome. We conclude that EDCA patients with cardiogenic etiology have more favorable survival to discharge and discharged neurological outcomes. Prolonged CPR time during EDCA, post-intubation status and sedative medication use were prognostic factors of negative survival and neurological outcomes.

Palliative care specialists in hospice and hospital/community teams predominantly use low doses of sedative medication at the end of life for patient comfort rather than sedation: Findings from focus groups and patient records for I-CAN-CARE

Background: Little research has explored the detail of practice when using sedative medications at the end of life. One work package of the I-CAN-CARE research programme investigates this in UK palliative care. Aims: To investigate current practices when using sedative medication at the end of life in London, UK, by (1) qualitatively exploring the understandings of palliative care clinicians, (2) examining documented sedative use in patient records and (3) comparing findings from both investigations. Design: We conducted focus groups with experienced palliative care physicians and nurses, and simultaneously reviewed deceased patient records. Setting/participants: In total, 10 physicians and 17 senior nurses in London hospice or hospital/community palliative care took part in eight focus groups. Simultaneously, 50 patient records for people who received continuous sedation at end of life in the hospice and hospital were retrieved and reviewed. Results: Focus group participants all said that they used sedative medication chiefly for managing agitation or distress; selecting drugs and dosages as appropriate for patients’ individual needs; and aiming to use the lowest possible dosages for patients to be ‘comfortable’, ‘calm’ or ‘relaxed’. None used structured observational tools to assess sedative effects, strongly preferring clinical observation and judgement. The patient records’ review corroborated these qualitative findings, with the median continuous dose of midazolam administered being 10 mg/24 h (range: 0.4–69.5 mg/24 h). Conclusion: Clinical practice in these London settings broadly aligns with the European Association for Palliative Care framework for using sedation at the end of life, but lacks any objective monitoring of depth of sedation. Our follow-on study explores the utility and feasibility of objectively monitoring sedation in practice.