Implementation of a Digitally Enabled Care Pathway (Part 1): Impact on Clinical Outcomes and Associated Health Care Costs.
acute kidney injury
nephrology
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 07 2019
15 07 2019
Historique:
received:
14
12
2018
accepted:
30
01
2019
revised:
29
01
2019
entrez:
2
8
2019
pubmed:
2
8
2019
medline:
24
4
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized patients is associated with adverse outcomes and increased health care costs. Simple automated e-alerts indicating its presence do not appear to improve outcomes, perhaps because of a lack of explicitly defined integration with a clinical response. We sought to test this hypothesis by evaluating the impact of a digitally enabled intervention on clinical outcomes and health care costs associated with AKI in hospitalized patients. We developed a care pathway comprising automated AKI detection, mobile clinician notification, in-app triage, and a protocolized specialist clinical response. We evaluated its impact by comparing data from pre- and postimplementation phases (May 2016 to January 2017 and May to September 2017, respectively) at the intervention site and another site not receiving the intervention. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using segmented regression analysis. The primary outcome was recovery of renal function to ≤120% of baseline by hospital discharge. Secondary clinical outcomes were mortality within 30 days of alert, progression of AKI stage, transfer to renal/intensive care units, hospital re-admission within 30 days of discharge, dependence on renal replacement therapy 30 days after discharge, and hospital-wide cardiac arrest rate. Time taken for specialist review of AKI alerts was measured. Impact on health care costs as defined by Patient-Level Information and Costing System data was evaluated using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis. The median time to AKI alert review by a specialist was 14.0 min (interquartile range 1.0-60.0 min). There was no impact on the primary outcome (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.58-1.71; P=.99). Although the hospital-wide cardiac arrest rate fell significantly at the intervention site (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.76; P<.001), DID analysis with the comparator site was not significant (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63-1.99; P=.69). There was no impact on other secondary clinical outcomes. Mean health care costs per patient were reduced by £2123 (95% CI -£4024 to -£222; P=.03), not including costs of providing the technology. The digitally enabled clinical intervention to detect and treat AKI in hospitalized patients reduced health care costs and possibly reduced cardiac arrest rates. Its impact on other clinical outcomes and identification of the active components of the pathway requires clarification through evaluation across multiple sites.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The development of acute kidney injury (AKI) in hospitalized patients is associated with adverse outcomes and increased health care costs. Simple automated e-alerts indicating its presence do not appear to improve outcomes, perhaps because of a lack of explicitly defined integration with a clinical response.
OBJECTIVE
We sought to test this hypothesis by evaluating the impact of a digitally enabled intervention on clinical outcomes and health care costs associated with AKI in hospitalized patients.
METHODS
We developed a care pathway comprising automated AKI detection, mobile clinician notification, in-app triage, and a protocolized specialist clinical response. We evaluated its impact by comparing data from pre- and postimplementation phases (May 2016 to January 2017 and May to September 2017, respectively) at the intervention site and another site not receiving the intervention. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using segmented regression analysis. The primary outcome was recovery of renal function to ≤120% of baseline by hospital discharge. Secondary clinical outcomes were mortality within 30 days of alert, progression of AKI stage, transfer to renal/intensive care units, hospital re-admission within 30 days of discharge, dependence on renal replacement therapy 30 days after discharge, and hospital-wide cardiac arrest rate. Time taken for specialist review of AKI alerts was measured. Impact on health care costs as defined by Patient-Level Information and Costing System data was evaluated using difference-in-differences (DID) analysis.
RESULTS
The median time to AKI alert review by a specialist was 14.0 min (interquartile range 1.0-60.0 min). There was no impact on the primary outcome (estimated odds ratio [OR] 1.00, 95% CI 0.58-1.71; P=.99). Although the hospital-wide cardiac arrest rate fell significantly at the intervention site (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.38-0.76; P<.001), DID analysis with the comparator site was not significant (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.63-1.99; P=.69). There was no impact on other secondary clinical outcomes. Mean health care costs per patient were reduced by £2123 (95% CI -£4024 to -£222; P=.03), not including costs of providing the technology.
CONCLUSIONS
The digitally enabled clinical intervention to detect and treat AKI in hospitalized patients reduced health care costs and possibly reduced cardiac arrest rates. Its impact on other clinical outcomes and identification of the active components of the pathway requires clarification through evaluation across multiple sites.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31368447
pii: v21i7e13147
doi: 10.2196/13147
pmc: PMC6693300
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e13147Informations de copyright
©Alistair Connell, Rosalind Raine, Peter Martin, Estela Capelas Barbosa, Stephen Morris, Claire Nightingale, Omid Sadeghi-Alavijeh, Dominic King, Alan Karthikesalingam, Cían Hughes, Trevor Back, Kareem Ayoub, Mustafa Suleyman, Gareth Jones, Jennifer Cross, Sarah Stanley, Mary Emerson, Charles Merrick, Geraint Rees, Hugh Montgomery, Christopher Laing. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 15.07.2019.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jul 15;21(7):e13143
pubmed: 31368443
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2015 Nov;30(11):1853-61
pubmed: 25925702
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2017 Feb 1;32(2):265-272
pubmed: 28088774
Nephron. 2017;137(4):297-301
pubmed: 28595193
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 May 28;11:83
pubmed: 21619668
Kidney Int. 2015 Jan;87(1):62-73
pubmed: 25317932
Am J Nephrol. 2012;35(4):349-55
pubmed: 22473149
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Oct 26;11:144
pubmed: 22029846
Am J Kidney Dis. 2018 Jan;71(1):9-19
pubmed: 28754457
BMJ Qual Improv Rep. 2017 May 25;6(1):
pubmed: 28607684
QJM. 2002 Sep;95(9):579-83
pubmed: 12205335
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2018 Feb;29(2):654-660
pubmed: 29097621
Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014 Jan;9(1):12-20
pubmed: 24178971
Lancet. 2015 May 16;385(9981):1966-74
pubmed: 25726515
Medicine (Baltimore). 2016 May;95(19):e3674
pubmed: 27175701
NPJ Digit Med. 2019 Jul 31;2:67
pubmed: 31396561
F1000Res. 2017 Jun 30;6:1033
pubmed: 28751970
QJM. 2017 Oct 01;110(10):657-666
pubmed: 28521019
Kidney Int. 2011 Jun;79(12):1361-9
pubmed: 21430640
Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2014 Jul;29(7):1362-8
pubmed: 24753459
Lancet. 2012 Aug 25;380(9843):756-66
pubmed: 22617274
BMJ Open. 2016 Aug 19;6(8):e012253
pubmed: 27543592
Clin Med (Lond). 2015 Dec;15(6):581-4
pubmed: 26621953
Int J Clin Pract. 2017 Sep;71(9):
pubmed: 28869717
Nephron. 2016;134(3):200-204
pubmed: 27376867