Aplicação dos critérios de adequação (appropriateness criteria) a um laboratório de ecocardiografia de grande volume de um hospital privado

Mestrado em Tecnologia de Diagnóstico e Intervenção. Área de especialização: Ultrassonografia Cardiovascular.

Report of a traineeship : audit of antidepressant prescribing in Primary and Mental Care: how to address appropriateness and keep a curb on costs. A tool suitable for all contexts?

RESUMO: Este é o relatório de um estágio realizado na Autoridade de Saúde Local de Bolonha com o objectivo de desenvolver capacidades e competências na área de projectos orientados para a avaliação com base epidemiológica. As prescrições de anti-depressivos aumentaram consideravelmente em todo o mundo durante as últimas décadas. O uso cada vez maior dos agentes mais dispendiosos desempenha um papel na subida do custo dos tratamentos. A Autoridade de Saúde Local de Bolonha implementou um processo de auditoria com o objectivo de melhorar a adequação das prescrições de pacientes externos, centrando-se em dois anti-depressivos de marca ainda protegidos por patente, Escitalopram e Duloxetine. Os Departamentos de Cuidados de Saúde Primários e de Cuidados de Saúde Mental, assim como o Departamento Farmacêutico e a Unidade de Gestão Clínica, estiveram envolvidos na fase de planeamento da auditoria. O grupo da auditoria, maioritariamente composto por médicos de clínica geral e psiquiatras, reuniu e analisou provas da eficácia e segurança dos anti-depressivos. Os dados sobre as prescrições das Unidades de Cuidados de Saúde Primários e dos Centros de Saúde Mental Comunitários da Autoridade de Saúde Local (866.294 habitantes) foram comparados, em particular as taxas de consumo de Escitalopram e Duloxetine. O grupo da auditoria definiu os standards a serem abordados, os indicadores a serem avaliados e as medidas a empreender para atingir os objectivos definidos. As directrizes do NICE sobre a depressão foram escolhidas como referência. O objectivo da auditoria foi definido como evitar o Escitalopram e Duloxetine como medicamentos de primeira escolha num tratamento anti-depressivo. De modo a verificar a eficácia das medidas empreendidas foi seleccionado um indicador, consistindo numa redução de 25% das prescrições de ambos os anti-depressivos na prática clínica de pacientes externos e numa redução de 20% da variabilidade nas Unidades de Cuidados de Saúde Primários. O relatório retrospectivo pré-auditoria (Janeiro a Abril de 2012) revelou que os tratamentos com anti-depressivos para pacientes externos eram prescritos pelos médicos de clínica geral em mais de90% dos casos. As medidas da auditoria foram implementadas entre Novembro de 2012 e Maio de 2013. Algumas medidas relevantes foram integradas com a revisão da auditoria, tais como reuniões educacionais de pequena escala com os médicos de clínica geral e psiquiatras, visitas de apoio do assessor de prescrições da Autoridade de Saúde Local aos médicos de clínica geral e Centros de Saúde Mental Comunitários, panfletos para profissionais com informação retirada das directrizes clínicas do NICE, implementação de um serviço de consulta na Web para médicos de clínica geral sobre provas relativas a anti-depressivos. O relatório de feedback é aguardado em Novembro de 2013 depois de se verificar nos standards atingidos a eficácia das medidas implementadas. Foi realizada uma análise SWOT para comprovar as forças e fraquezas, as oportunidades e ameaças do processo. Como identificação de fraquezas poderá ser útil identificar estratégias relevantes para melhoria interna, para que o conhecimento das ameaças possa amortizar factores que possam ter impactos adversos que fujam ao controlo do Departamento de Saúde Mental. Uma melhor compreensão das forças e das oportunidades facilita a consecução dos objectivos estabelecidos no projecto. O primeiro, mas não o último, resultado deste processo consistiu numa maior integração entre os Cuidados de Saúde Primários e de Saúde Mental, permitindo assim que a Autoridade de Saúde Local coloque as alterações em prática.------------ABSTRACT: This is the report of a traineeship held in the Local Health Authority of Bologna with the aim to develop skills and competencies in the field of epidemiogically based evaluation oriented projects. Antidepressants prescriptions have considerably increased all over the world in the last decades. The increasing use of the most expensive agents plays a part in the rising cost of treatments. The Local Health Authority of Bologna has implemented an audit process aimed at improving the appropriateness of outpatient prescriptions focusing on the two branded antidepressants still protected by patent, Escitalopram and Duloxetine. The Primary Care and the Mental Health Care Departments, as well as the Pharmaceutical Department and the Clinical Governance Unit, were involved in the planning phase of the audit. The audit group, mainly composed of general practitioners and psychiatrists, collected and analyzed scientific evidence on effectiveness and safety of antidepressants. Data on prescriptions of Primary Care Units and Community Mental Health Centers of the Local Health Authority (866.294 inhabitants) were compared, in particular consumption rates of Escitalopram and Duloxetine. The audit group defined the standards to be addressed, the indicators to be evaluated and the actions aimed at reaching the defined goals. NICE guidelines on depression were chosen as reference. The aim of the audit was settled as avoiding Escitalopram and Duloxetine as first choice drugs starting an AD treatment. In order to check the efficacy of the actions undertaken an indicator was selected, consisting in a reduction of 25% of prescriptions of both ADs in outpatient practice and in a 20% reduction of To develop skills and competencies across Primary Care Units. The pre-audit retrospective report (January-April 2012) showed that outpatient antidepressant treatments were prescribed by GPs in over 90% of cases. Audit actions were implemented between November 2012 and May 2013. Some relevant actions have been integrated with the audit review, such as small-scale educational meetings with GPs and psychiatrists, outreach visits of the LHA prescribing adviser to GPs and CMHCs,leaflets for professionals with information extracted from NICE clinical guidelines, implementation of a web consultation service for GPs about evidence on antidepressants. The feedback report is expected in November 2013 after checking through the standards attained the effectiveness of actions implemented. A SWOT Analysis was carried out to evidence the strengths and weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the process. As identification of weaknesses may be useful to identify relevant strategies for internal improvement, so the knowledge of threats can amortize factors that may have adverse impacts beyond the control of the Mental Health Department. Better understanding of the strengths and the opportunities facilitates the achievement of the goals set in the project. The first and not least upshot of this process has consisted in further integration between Primary and Mental Health Care, thus enabling the LHA to put the change into practice.

Appropriateness criteria for surgery improve clinical outcomes in patients with low back pain and/or sciatica.

STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, controlled, observational outcome study using clinical, radiographic, and patient/physician-based questionnaire data, with patient outcomes at 12 months follow-up. OBJECTIVE: To validate appropriateness criteria for low back surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Most surgical treatment failures are attributed to poor patient selection, but no widely accepted consensus exists on detailed indications for appropriate surgery. METHODS: Appropriateness criteria for low back surgery have been developed by a multispecialty panel using the RAND appropriateness method. Based on panel criteria, a prospective study compared outcomes of patients appropriately and inappropriately treated at a single institution with 12 months follow-up assessment. Included were patients with low back pain and/or sciatica referred to the neurosurgical department. Information about symptoms, neurologic signs, the health-related quality of life (SF-36), disability status (Roland-Morris), and pain intensity (VAS) was assessed at baseline, at 6 months, and at 12 months follow-up. The appropriateness criteria were administered prospectively to each clinical situation and outside of the clinical setting, with the surgeon and patients blinded to the results of the panel decision. The patients were further stratified into 2 groups: appropriate treatment group (ATG) and inappropriate treatment group (ITG). RESULTS: Overall, 398 patients completed all forms at 12 months. Treatment was considered appropriate for 365 participants and inappropriate for 33 participants. The mean improvement in the SF-36 physical component score at 12 months was significantly higher in the ATG (mean: 12.3 points) than in the ITG (mean: 6.8 points) (P = 0.01), as well as the mean improvement in the SF-36 mental component score (ATG mean: 5.0 points; ITG mean: -0.5 points) (P = 0.02). Improvement was also significantly higher in the ATG for the mean VAS back pain (ATG mean: 2.3 points; ITG mean: 0.8 points; P = 0.02) and Roland-Morris disability score (ATG mean: 7.7 points; ITG mean: 4.2 points; P = 0.004). The ATG also had a higher improvement in mean VAS for sciatica (4.0 points) than the ITG (2.8 points), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.08). The SF-36 General Health score declined in both groups after 12 months, however, the decline was worse in the ITG (mean decline: 8.2 points) than in the ATG (mean decline: 1.2 points) (P = 0.04). Overall, in comparison to ITG patients, ATG patients had significantly higher improvement at 12 months, both statistically and clinically. CONCLUSION: In comparison to previously reported literature, our study is the first to assess the utility of appropriateness criteria for low back surgery at 1-year follow-up with multiple outcome dimensions. Our results confirm the hypothesis that application of appropriateness criteria can significantly improve patient outcomes.

The management of iron deficiency in inflammatory bowel disease--an online tool developed by the RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency is a common and undertreated problem in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). AIM: To develop an online tool to support treatment choice at the patient-specific level. METHODS: Using the RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method (RUAM), a European expert panel assessed the appropriateness of treatment regimens for a variety of clinical scenarios in patients with non-anaemic iron deficiency (NAID) and iron deficiency anaemia (IDA). Treatment options included adjustment of IBD medication only, oral iron supplementation, high-/low-dose intravenous (IV) regimens, IV iron plus erythropoietin-stimulating agent (ESA), and blood transfusion. The panel process consisted of two individual rating rounds (1148 treatment indications; 9-point scale) and three plenary discussion meetings. RESULTS: The panel reached agreement on 71% of treatment indications. 'No treatment' was never considered appropriate, and repeat treatment after previous failure was generally discouraged. For 98% of scenarios, at least one treatment was appropriate. Adjustment of IBD medication was deemed appropriate in all patients with active disease. Use of oral iron was mainly considered an option in NAID and mildly anaemic patients without disease activity. IV regimens were often judged appropriate, with high-dose IV iron being the preferred option in 77% of IDA scenarios. Blood transfusion and IV+ESA were indicated in exceptional cases only. CONCLUSIONS: The RUAM revealed high agreement amongst experts on the management of iron deficiency in patients with IBD. High-dose IV iron was more often considered appropriate than other options. To facilitate dissemination of the recommendations, panel outcomes were embedded in an online tool, accessible via http://ferroscope.com/.

Is the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy improved by the use of explicit panel-based appropriateness criteria?

BACKGROUND: Increasing the appropriateness of use of upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy is important to improve quality of care while at the same time containing costs. This study explored whether detailed explicit appropriateness criteria significantly improve the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy. METHODS: Consecutive patients referred for upper GI endoscopy at 6 centers (1 university hospital, 2 district hospitals, 3 gastroenterology practices) were prospectively included over a 6-month period. After controlling for disease presentation and patient characteristics, the relationship between the appropriateness of upper GI endoscopy, as assessed by explicit Swiss criteria developed by the RAND/UCLA panel method, and the presence of relevant endoscopic lesions was analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2088 patients (60% outpatients, 57% men) were included. Analysis was restricted to the 1681 patients referred for diagnostic upper GI endoscopy. Forty-six percent of upper GI endoscopies were judged to be appropriate, 15% uncertain, and 39% inappropriate by the explicit criteria. No cancer was found in upper GI endoscopies judged to be inappropriate. Upper GI endoscopies judged appropriate or uncertain yielded significantly more relevant lesions (60%) than did those judged to be inappropriate (37%; odds ratio 2.6: 95% CI [2.2, 3.2]). In multivariate analyses, the diagnostic yield of upper GI endoscopy was significantly influenced by appropriateness, patient gender and age, treatment setting, and symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Upper GI endoscopies performed for appropriate indications resulted in detecting significantly more clinically relevant lesions than did those performed for inappropriate indications. In addition, no upper GI endoscopy that resulted in a diagnosis of cancer was judged to be inappropriate. The use of such criteria improves patient selection for upper GI endoscopy and can thus contribute to efforts aimed at enhancing the quality and efficiency of care. (Gastrointest Endosc 2000;52:333-41).

Appropriateness of colonoscopy in Europe (EPAGE II). Surveillance after polypectomy and after resection of colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy and after curative-intent resection of colorectal cancer (CRC), and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. METHODS: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies regarding the evaluation and management of surveillance colonoscopy after polypectomy and after resection of CRC was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy for these conditions. RESULTS: Most CRCs arise from adenomatous polyps. The characteristics of removed polyps, especially the distinction between low-risk adenomas (1 or 2, small [< 1 cm], tubular, no high-grade dysplasia) vs. high-risk adenomas (large [> or = 1 cm], multiple [> 3], high-grade dysplasia or villous features), have an impact on advanced adenoma recurrence. Most guidelines recommend a 3-year follow-up colonoscopy for high-risk adenomas and a 5-year colonoscopy for low-risk adenomas. Despite the lack of evidence to support or refute any survival benefit for follow-up colonoscopy after curative-intent CRC resection, surveillance colonoscopy is recommended by most guidelines. The timing of the first surveillance colonoscopy differs. The expert panel considered that 56 % of the clinical indications for colonoscopy for surveillance after polypectomy were appropriate. For surveillance after CRC resection, it considered colonoscopy appropriate 1 year after resection. CONCLUSIONS: Colonoscopy is recommended as a first-choice procedure for surveillance after polypectomy by all published guidelines and by the EPAGE II criteria. Despite the limitations of the published studies, colonoscopy is also recommended by most of the guidelines and by EPAGE II criteria for surveillance after curative-intent CRC resection.

Appropriateness of methadone maintenance treatment for opiate addiction: evaluation by an expert panel.

With some 30,000 dependent persons, opiate addiction constitutes a major public health problem in Switzerland. The Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH) has long played a leading role in the prevention and treatment of opiate addiction and in research on effective means of containing the epidemic of opiate addiction and its consequences. Major milestones on that path have been the successive "Methadone reports" published by that Office and providing guidance on the care of opiate addiction with substitution treatment. In view of updating the recommendations for the appropriateness of substitution treatment for opiate addiction, in particular for the prescription of methadone, the FOPH commissioned a multi-component project involving the following elements. A survey of current attitudes and practices in Switzerland related to opiate substitution treatment Review of Swiss literature on methadone substitution treatment Review of international literature on methadone substitution treatment National Methadone Substitution Conference Multidisciplinary expert panel to evaluate the appropriateness of substitution treatment. The present report documents the process and summarises the results of the latter element above. The RAND appropriateness method (RAM) was used to distil from literature-based evidence and systematically formulated expert opinion, areas where consensus exist on the appropriateness (or inappropriateness) of methadone maintenance treatment (MMT) and areas where disagreement or uncertainty persist and which should be further pursued. The major areas which were addressed by this report are Initial assessment of candidates for MMT Appropriate settings for initiation of MMT (general and special cases) Appropriateness of methadone supportive therapy Co-treatments and accompanying measures Dosage schedules and pharmacokinetic testing Withdrawal from MMT Miscellaneous questions Appropriateness of other (non-methadone) substitution treatment Summary statements for each of the above categories are derived from the panel meeting and presented in the report. In the "first round", agreement was observed for 31% of the 553 theoretical scenarios evaluated. The "second round" rating, following discussion of divergent ratings, resulted in a much higher agreement among panellists, reaching 53% of the 537 scenarios. Frank disagreement was encountered for 7% of all scenarios. Overall 49% of the clinical situations (scenarios) presented were considered appropriate. The areas where at least 50% of the situations were considered appropriate were "initial assessment of candidates for MMT", the "appropriate settings for initiation of MMT", the "appropriate settings for methadone supportive treatment" and "Appropriateness of other (non-methadone) substitution treatment". The area where there was the least consensus on appropriateness concerned "appropriateness of withdrawal from MMT" (6%). The report discusses the implications and limitations of the panel results and provides recommendations for the dissemination, application, and future use of the criteria for the appropriateness of MMT. The RAND Appropriateness Method proved to be an accepted and appreciated method to assess the appropriateness of methadone maintenance treatment for opiate addicts. In the next step, the results of the expert panel process must now be combined with those of the Swiss and international literature reviews and the survey of current attitudes and practices in Switzerland, to be synthesized into formal practice guidelines. Such guidelines should be disseminated to all concerned, promoted, used and rigorously evaluated for compliance and outcome.

Appropriateness and long-term discontinuation rate of biological therapies in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Anti-TNFα agents are commonly used for ulcerative colitis (UC) therapy in the event of non-response to conventional strategies or as colon-salvaging therapy. The objectives were to assess the appropriateness of biological therapies for UC patients and to study treatment discontinuation over time, according to appropriateness of treatment, as a measure of outcome. METHODS: We selected adult ulcerative colitis patients from the Swiss IBD cohort who had been treated with anti-TNFα agents. Appropriateness of the first-line anti-TNFα treatment was assessed using detailed criteria developed during the European Panel on the Appropriateness of Therapy for UC. Treatment discontinuation as an outcome was assessed for categories of appropriateness. RESULTS: Appropriateness of the first-line biological treatment was determined in 186 UC patients. For 64% of them, this treatment was considered appropriate. During follow-up, 37% of all patients discontinued biological treatment, 17% specifically because of failure. Time-to-failure of treatment was significantly different among patients on an appropriate biological treatment compared to those for whom the treatment was considered not appropriate (p=0.0007). Discontinuation rate after 2years was 26% compared to 54% between those two groups. Patients on inappropriate biological treatment were more likely to have severe disease, concomitant steroids and/or immunomodulators. They were also consistently more likely to suffer a failure of efficacy and to stop therapy during follow-up. CONCLUSION: Appropriateness of first-line anti-TNFα therapy results in a greater likelihood of continuing with the therapy. In situations where biological treatment is uncertain or inappropriate, physicians should consider other options instead of prescribing anti-TNFα agents.

Improving appropriateness of antibiotic therapy: randomized trial of an intervention to foster reassessment of prescription after 3 days.

OBJECTIVES: Reassessment of ongoing antibiotic therapy is an important step towards appropriate use of antibiotics. This study was conducted to evaluate the impact of a short questionnaire designed to encourage reassessment of intravenous antibiotic therapy after 3 days. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients hospitalized on the surgical and medical wards of a university hospital and treated with an intravenous antibiotic for 3-4 days were randomly allocated to either an intervention or control group. The intervention consisted of mailing to the physician in charge of the patient a three-item questionnaire referring to possible adaptation of the antibiotic therapy. The primary outcome was the time elapsed from randomization until a first modification of the initial intravenous antibiotic therapy. It was compared within both groups using Cox proportional-hazard modelling. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-six eligible patients were randomized in the intervention group and 125 in the control group. Time to modification of intravenous antibiotic therapy was 14% shorter in the intervention group (adjusted hazard ratio for modification 1.28, 95% CI 0.99-1.67, P = 0.06). It was significantly shorter in the intervention group compared with a similar group of 151 patients observed during a 2 month period preceding the study (adjusted hazard ratio 1.17, 95% CI 1.03-1.32, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: The results suggest that a short questionnaire, easily adaptable to automatization, has the potential to foster reassessment of antibiotic therapy.

Appropriateness of respiratory care: development of evidence-based guidelines in an acute care hospital

Background: Respiratory care is universally recognised as useful, but its indications and practice vary markedly. In order to improve appropriateness of respiratory care in our hospital, we developed evidence-based local guidelines in a collaborative effort involving physiotherapists, physicians, and health services researchers. Methods: Recommendations were developed using the standardised RAND appropriateness method. A literature search was performed for the period between 1995 and 2008 based on terms associated with guidelines and with respiratory care. Publications were assessed according to the Oxford classification of quality of evidence. A working group prepared proposals for recommendations which were then independently rated by a multidisciplinary expert panel. All recommendations were then discussed in common and indications for procedures were rated confidentially a second time by the experts. Each indication for respiratory care was classified as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate, based on the panel median rating and the degree of intra-panel agreement. Results: Recommendations were formulated for the following procedures: non-invasive ventilation, continuous positive airway pressure, intermittent positive pressure breathing, intrapulmonary percussive ventilation, mechanical insufflation-exsufflation, incentive spirometry, positive expiratory pressure, nasotracheal suctioning, noninstrumental airway clearance techniques. Each recommendation referred to a particular medical condition, and was assigned to a hierarchical category based on the quality of evidence from literature supporting the recommendation and on the consensus of experts. Conclusion: Despite a marked heterogeneity of scientific evidence, the method used allowed us to develop commonly agreed local guidelines for respiratory care. In addition, this work fostered a closer relationship between physiotherapists and physicians in our institution.

First explicit criteria to decide on the appropriateness of therapy of ulcerative colitis: the European EPATUC panel

Background: Ulcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic disease with a wide variety of treatment options many of which are not evidence based. Supplementing available guidelines, which are often broadly defined, consensus-based and generally not tailored to specifically reflect the individual patient situation, we developed explicit appropriateness criteria to assist, and improve treatment decisions. Methods: We used the RAND appropriateness method which does not force consensus. An extensive literature review was compiled based on and supplementing, where necessary, the ECCO UC 2011 guidelines. EPATUC (endorsed by ECCO) was formed by 8 gastroenterologists, 2 surgeons and 2 general practitioners from throughout Europe. Clinical scenarios reflecting practice were rated on a 9-point scale from 1 (extremely inappropriate) to 9 (extremely appropriate), based on the expert's experience and the available literature. After extensive discussion, all scenarios were re-rated at a two-day panel meeting. Median and disagreement were used to categorize ratings into 3 categories: appropriate, uncertain and inappropriate. Results: 718 clinical scenarios were rated, structured in 13 main clinical presentations: not refractory (n=64) or refractory (n=33) proctitis, mild to moderate left-sided (n=72) or extensive (n=48) colitis, severe colitis (n=36), steroid-dependant colitis (n=36), steroid-refractory colitis (n=55), acute pouchitis (n=96), maintenance of remission (n=248), colorectal cancer prevention (n=9) and fulminant colitis (n=9). Overall, 100 indications were judged appropriate (14%), 129 uncertain (18%) and 489 inappropriate (68%). Disagreement between experts was very low (6%). Conclusion: For the very first time, explicit appropriateness criteria for therapy of UC were developed that allow both specific and rapid therapeutic decision making and prospective assessment of treatment appropriateness. Comparison of these detailed scenarios with patient profiles encountered in the Swiss IBD cohort study indicates good concordance. EPATUC criteria will be freely accessible on the internet (epatuc.ch).