Bory Kea

Consensus development for healthcare professionals.

Consensus development sprang from a desire to synthesize clinician and expert opinions on clinical practice and research agendas in the 1950s. And since the American Institute of Medicine formally defined “guidelines” in 1990, there has been a proliferation of clinical practice guidelines (CPG) both formally and informally. This modern decision-making tool used by both physicians and patients, requires extensive planning to overcome the challenges of consensus development while reaping its rewards. Consensus allows for a group approach of multiple experts sharing ideas to form consensus on topics ranging from appropriateness of procedures to research agenda development. Disagreements can shed light on areas of controversy and launch further discussions. It has five main components: three inputs (defining the task, participant identification and recruitment, and information synthesis), the approach (consensus development by explicit or implicit means), and the output (dissemination of results). Each aspect requires extensive planning a priori as they influence the entire process, from how information will be interpreted, the interaction of participants, the resulting judgment, to whether there will be uptake of results. Implicit approaches utilize qualitative methods and/or a simple voting structure of majority wins, and are used in informal consensus development methods and consensus development conferences. Explicit approaches aggregate results or judgments using explicit rules set a priori with definitions of “agreement” or consensus. Because the implicit process can be more opaque, unforeseen challenges can emerge such as the undue influence of a minority. And yet, the logistics of explicit approaches may be more time consuming and not appropriate when speed is a priority. In determining which method to use, it is important to understand the pros and cons of different approaches and how it will affect the overall input, approach, and outcome.

Thromboprophylaxis for Patients with High-risk Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter Discharged from the Emergency Department

Introduction Many patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter (AF/FL) who are high risk for ischemic stroke are not receiving evidence-based thromboprophylaxis. We examined anticoagulant prescribing within 30 days of receiving dysrhythmia care for non-valvular AF/FL in the emergency department (ED). Methods This prospective study included non-anticoagulated adults at high risk for ischemic stroke (ATRIA score ≥7) who received emergency AF/FL care and were discharged home from seven community EDs between May 2011 and August 2012. We characterized oral anticoagulant prescribing patterns and identified predictors of receiving anticoagulants within 30 days of the index ED visit. We also describe documented reasons for withholding anticoagulation. Results Of 312 eligible patients, 128 (41.0%) were prescribed anticoagulation at ED discharge or within 30 days. Independent predictors of anticoagulation included age (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.89 per year, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82–0.96); ED cardiology consultation (aOR 1.89, 95% CI [1.10–3.23]); and failure of sinus restoration by time of ED discharge (aOR 2.65, 95% CI [1.35–5.21]). Reasons for withholding anticoagulation at ED discharge were documented in 139 of 227 cases (61.2%), the most common of which were deferring the shared decision-making process to the patient’s outpatient provider, perceived bleeding risk, patient refusal, and restoration of sinus rhythm. Conclusion Approximately 40% of non-anticoagulated AF/FL patients at high risk for stroke who presented for emergency dysrhythmia care were prescribed anticoagulation within 30 days. Physicians were less likely to anticoagulate older patients and those with ED sinus restoration. Opportunities exist to improve rates of thromboprophylaxis in this high-risk population.

Stroke Prophylaxis After a New Emergency Department Diagnosis of Atrial Fibrillation

Up to 25% of all new atrial fibrillation (AF) diagnoses are made in the emergency department (ED); however, this patient population is often understudied and overlooked. Prior efforts to characterize oral anticoagulation (OAC) prescribing patterns after an ED visit for incident AF is scant, although