Why not use #evidence-based methods for #healthcare #qualityimprovement?

Today TheEvidenceDoc is testing the use of podcasts. Do you like podcasts better than text? After you listen, let me know. And if you've heard other myths (or excuses) for why healthcare organizations shouldn't use evidence-based methods for quality improvement, please share.

#PSW2015 - Patient Safety Week, Enthusiasm, and New Projects

It's Patient Safety Week and it's great to see the passion, enthusiasm and sharing this week. Are you and your organization eager to try out some new projects you learned during the latest conferences and webinars? Wonderful but....WAIT!

What do I mean wait? Why shouldn't you rush to introduce these new interventions while the excitement and enthusiasm is high? This may surprise you, but on the basis of chance alone, there is more potential for change to introduce harm than good. HOW?

You have the opportunity to increase benefit, decrease benefit, or get no change in benefit to patients or staff from implementing an intervention. Also remember, an intervention may increase harm, decrease harm, or have no effect on the amount of harm to patients or staff. By chance alone, any new intervention could create the following options:

Effect on Harm          Effect on Benefit                 Overall Result

Decrease Harm           Increase Benefit                   WIN/WIN

No change in Harm    Increase Benefit                   WIN

Increase Harm            Increase Benefit                   Can you manage the harm?

Decrease Harm           No change in Benefit           Value dependent

No change in Harm    No change in Benefit           LOSS - What a waste

Increase Harm            No change in Benefit           LOSS

Decrease Harm           Decrease Benefit                  Value dependent

No change in Harm    Decrease Benefit                  LOSS

Increase Harm            Decrease Benefit                  MAJOR LOSS

You have a 1 in 9 chance of increasing benefit and decreasing harm, your preferred outcome. You have the exact same chance, 1 in 9 of getting a major loss by increasing harm and reducing benefit. But you also have a 4 in 9 overall chance of outcomes you do not want, and 3 in 9 of outcomes that may or may not be a net improvement for your organization. By chance alone, only 2 out of 9 are definite improvements.

How can you improve your odds? To get the odds in your favor, you need evidence. You can use evidence-based methods to choose practices likely to have better chance of success in your organization. See TheEvidenceDoc checklist for more detail. Things to consider are to evaluate whether or not the innovation actually worked where it was tested - Were the outcomes measured in the same way before and after implementation, for example? If it makes a clinically important (not just statistically significant difference), could it work for you? The project leaders need to provide enough detail about the setting, the patient population, the intervention and the outcomes for you to evaluate how well the innovation might translate to other organizations. And what are the harms? Could you make it safe to try the project in your organization?

Learn to use evidence to increase your chances for a success!

TheEvidenceDoc


 

 

 

Azithromycin and arrythmia - another reason to Choose Wisely

Today the FDA released a Safety Announcement to warn the public and health professionals that azithromycin can cause heart abnormalities leading to sudden death.  Azithromycin is a macrolide antibiotic, a type of antibiotic already known to be associated with abnormal heart rhythm and an increased risk of sudden death. But azithromycin was widely believed to have minimal toxicity to the heart, because prior studies had not detected the potentially lethal effect. It was that belief that lead it to become widely prescribed, often in elderly patients with heart disease who may be more susceptible to the drug's cardiac effects.

In 2009 JAMA published a study of antibiotic use for acute respiratory tract infections (colds) with Big Data from a national database. The study had encouraging findings of an overall decrease in the use of antibiotics for colds - most caused by viruses which are not treatable with antibiotics. But it also found that even though most antibiotic use decreased, azithromycin use increased substantially, six times between 1995 and 2006. This data shouldn't surprise us. The Z-pack has become so common that patients ask for it by name.

The FDA summary of the data that prompted the warning comes from a NEJM study published in May of 2012 and a manufacturer study that found azithromycin is associated with QT interval prolongation - an irregularity of the heart rhythm that can lead to sudden death.

The NEJM study was a very well designed and conducted large study in a very large population with relatively complete medical record.  The NEJM study is a good example of the use of Big Data to examine a patient safety issue. The study authors used a statewide database to evaluate the risk after published case reports suggested it. But it was an observational study, a design often disparaged outside the research community. However, well done observational studies are often our best chance at finding harm associated with therapy because, thankfully, harms are relatively rare. Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often too small or too short in follow-up time to detect increases in harmful side effects.  Large observational studies that are carefully planned and carried out to reduce the risks associated with non-experimental design can find these increases.

So we have data that the Z-pac is not as safe as once believed. Data to consider when balancing the benefit and risk to an individual patient. Even when side effects are rare, as they are in this instance, we need to evaluate the seriousness of the side effect, in this case sudden cardiac death.  We must balance that risk against the potential benefit from using the drug and assess whether or not the patient needs this specific antibiotic or even any antibiotic. 

We have data that while overall antibiotic prescribing for colds is down, prescribing for azithromycin is up, way up. It kills more bacteria and it's easier for patients to complete a full course of therapy.  Patients ask for it by name.

And we are concerned about antibiotic resistant bacteria. 

Do we need more evidence to Choose Wisely when considering a prescription for antibiotic therapy?  The FDA is not saying we should stop using azithromycin. The FDA is warning that our prior belief that it did not share the cardiac toxicity of others in its class was wrong. Dead wrong.

It's time to consider this drug choice more carefully and choose wisely when evaluating antibiotic therapy. Does this patient need azithromycin? Would amoxicillin be effective? Does this patient need an antibiotic at all?

TheEvidenceDoc

Postscript -Dr. Ireland commented on this issue last year, shortly after the release of the study and the FDA statement.