Quality Improvement Program Improves Time in Therapeutic Range for Hemodialysis Recipients Taking Warfarin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that achieving a time in therapeutic range (TTR) for warfarin of greater than 60% is associated with a lower risk of bleeding. However, many patients on hemodialysis (HD) do not achieve this target. METHODS: We audited TTR achievement at the in-center HD unit of our hospital in 2017 and found that only 40% of patients had achieved a TTR >60%. We aimed to improve the percentage of HD patients achieving target TTR within 2 years. We reported each patient's individualized trend in quarterly TTR to their primary warfarin prescriber as an audit-feedback report. These reports were generated, disseminated, and subsequently improved following a series of plan-do-study-act cycles. We then used statistical process control to assess for changes in the percentage of HD patients achieving target TTR over time. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, 28 patients were included in the baseline period, and 46 were included in the intervention period. At baseline, the percentage of patients achieving a TTR >60% varied between 33% and 45% (mean ± SD, 40% ± 5%); post-intervention, this metric improved and varied between 52% and 71% (mean ± SD, 61% ± 8%). In time-series analysis, there was evidence of statistically significant variation between the 2 periods and evidence of sustained improvement. CONCLUSIONS: A quality improvement program consisting of an audit-feedback report that raises awareness of the quality gap in TTR achievement can result in substantial improvement in the safe and efficacious administration of warfarin to patients receiving maintenance hemodialysis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".