Do Guidelines Influence Emergency Department Staff Behaviours and Improve Patient Outcomes? Evaluation of a Multifaceted Intervention for the Implementation of Local Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Guidelines
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Published national guidelines on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) highlight the importance of oxygen therapy, bronchodilators, corticosteroids, and appropriate antibiotics during acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD). We wished to assess how the implementation of local COPD guidelines affects emergency department (ED) staff awareness, knowledge, the use of such guidelines, and patient outcomes, including treatment failure and rates of return to the ED. Methods This study was conducted at a tertiary hospital ED. Local COPD guidelines were developed by a quality improvement group. Guidelines were posted in the department, and educational sessions were provided for staff. We conducted a retrospective chart review and looked at 1849 patient visits before and after COPD guideline implementation. All visits with a diagnosis of COPD or AECOPD were included in the study (for a total of 130 patient visits), and data were collected using a standardized abstraction tool. For non-admitted patients, we recorded 30-day return rates and treatment failures occurring within 30 days of presenting to the ED. Pre- and post-implementation outcomes were analyzed with Fisher's exact tests. We also assessed ED staff awareness, knowledge, and use of COPD guidelines through surveys given out before implementation, and both one and 10 months after the implementation. We calculated proportions and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for our surveys. Pre- and post-implementation survey responses were compared with Fisher's exact tests. Results For ED physicians, the survey response rate was 78%, 79%, and 58% at pre-implementation, one-month follow-up, and 10-month follow-up, respectively. Prior to implementation, 14.3% (95% CI 4.1%-35.5%) were aware and 0% (0%-18.2%) reported using guidelines. One month after implementation, 90.9% (71.0%-98.7%) were aware and 81.8% (60.9%-93.3%) reported using guidelines. At 10 months, 100% (76.1%-100%) were aware and 100% (82%-100%) reported using local guidelines. Similar trends were seen among nurses and respiratory therapists. To assess actual guideline use, 130 visits were evaluated (51 visits prior to implementation and 79 post-implementation). Prior to implementation, 57% (43%-70%) received bronchodilators, systemic steroids, and antibiotics appropriately. Following guideline implementation, 57% (46%-67%) received the respective treatments (p=1.0). For patient-related outcomes, 86 non-admission patient visits were evaluated (35 visits prior to implementation and 51 post-implementation). Prior to guideline implementation, 17% (8%-33%) failed their initial AECOPD treatment, compared to 10% (4%-21%) following guideline implementation (p=0.34). Prior to guideline implementation, 23% (12%-39%) returned to the ED within 30 days in the pre-implementation period while 14% (7%-26%) returned post-implementation (p=0.39). Conclusion Our introduction of local COPD guidelines was successful at increasing self-reported awareness, knowledge, and the use of best practice guidelines among ED staff. At the 10-month follow-up, increased awareness, knowledge, and use of COPD guidelines among ED staff was maintained. However, in practice, guideline adherence, treatment failure, and return rates did not improve significantly after the implementation of local guidelines.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».