Shoshanna Sofaer

Venous Thromboembolism, Thrombophilia, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Pregnancy* American College of Chest Physicians Evidence- Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition)

This article discusses the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and thrombophilia, as well as the use of antithrombotic agents, during pregnancy and is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 recommendations are weaker and imply that the magnitude of the benefits and risks, burden, and costs are less certain. Support for recommendations may come from high-quality, moderate-quality or low-quality studies; labeled, respectively, A, B, and C. Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for pregnant women, in general, we recommend that vitamin K antagonists should be substituted with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [Grade 1A], except perhaps in women with mechanical heart valves. For pregnant patients, we suggest LMWH over UFH for the prevention and treatment of VTE (Grade 2C). For pregnant women with acute VTE, we recommend that subcutaneous LMWH or UFH should be continued throughout pregnancy (Grade 1B) and suggest that anticoagulants should be continued for at least 6 weeks postpartum (for a total minimum duration of therapy of 6 months) [Grade 2C]. For pregnant patients with a single prior episode of VTE associated with a transient risk factor that is no longer present and no thrombophilia, we recommend clinical surveillance antepartum and anticoagulant prophylaxis postpartum (Grade 1C). For other pregnant women with a history of a single prior episode of VTE who are not receiving long-term anticoagulant therapy, we recommend one of the following, rather than routine care or full-dose anticoagulation: antepartum prophylactic LMWH/UFH or intermediate-dose LMWH/UFH or clinical surveillance throughout pregnancy plus postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 1C). For such patients with a higher risk thrombophilia, in addition to postpartum prophylaxis, we suggest antepartum prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or prophylactic or intermediate-dose UFH, rather than clinical surveillance (Grade 2C). We suggest that pregnant women with multiple episodes of VTE who are not receiving long-term anticoagulants receive antepartum prophylactic, intermediate-dose, or adjusted-dose LMWH or intermediate or adjusted-dose UFH, followed by postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 2C). For those pregnant women with prior VTE who are receiving long-term anticoagulants, we recommend LMWH or UFH throughout pregnancy (either adjusted-dose LMWH or UFH, 75% of adjusted-dose LMWH, or intermediate-dose LMWH) followed by resumption of long-term anticoagulants postpartum (Grade 1C). We suggest both antepartum and postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with no prior history of VTE but antithrombin deficiency (Grade 2C). For all other pregnant women with thrombophilia but no prior VTE, we suggest antepartum clinical surveillance or prophylactic LMWH or UFH, plus postpartum anticoagulants, rather than routine care (Grade 2C). For women with recurrent early pregnancy loss or unexplained late pregnancy loss, we recommend screening for antiphospholipid antibodies (APLAs) [Grade 1A]. For women with these pregnancy complications who test positive for APLAs and have no history of venous or arterial thrombosis, we recommend antepartum administration of prophylactic or intermediate-dose UFH or prophylactic LMWH combined with aspirin (Grade 1B). We recommend that the decision about anticoagulant management during pregnancy for pregnant women with mechanical heart valves include an assessment of additional risk factors for thromboembolism including valve type, position, and history of thromboembolism (Grade 1C). While patient values and preferences are important for all decisions regarding antithrombotic therapy in pregnancy, this is particularly so for women with mechanical heart valves. For these women, we recommend either adjusted-dose bid LMWH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), adjusted-dose UFH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), or one of these two regimens until the thirteenth week with warfarin substitution until close to delivery before restarting LMWH or UFH) [Grade 1C]. However, if a pregnant woman with a mechanical heart valve is judged to be at very high risk of thromboembolism and there are concerns about the efficacy and safety of LMWH or UFH as dosed above, we suggest vitamin K antagonists throughout pregnancy with replacement by UFH or LMWH close to delivery, after a thorough discussion of the potential risks and benefits of this approach (Grade 2C).

Venous Thromboembolism, Thrombophilia, Antithrombotic Therapy, and Pregnancy

This article discusses the management of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and thrombophilia, as well as the use of antithrombotic agents, during pregnancy and is part of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Grade 1 recommendations are strong and indicate that benefits do, or do not, outweigh risks, burden, and costs. Grade 2 recommendations are weaker and imply that the magnitude of the benefits and risks, burden, and costs are less certain. Support for recommendations may come from high-quality, moderate-quality or low-quality studies; labeled, respectively, A, B, and C. Among the key recommendations in this chapter are the following: for pregnant women, in general, we recommend that vitamin K antagonists should be substituted with unfractionated heparin (UFH) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) [Grade 1A], except perhaps in women with mechanical heart valves. For pregnant patients, we suggest LMWH over UFH for the prevention and treatment of VTE (Grade 2C). For pregnant women with acute VTE, we recommend that subcutaneous LMWH or UFH should be continued throughout pregnancy (Grade 1B) and suggest that anticoagulants should be continued for at least 6 weeks postpartum (for a total minimum duration of therapy of 6 months) [Grade 2C]. For pregnant patients with a single prior episode of VTE associated with a transient risk factor that is no longer present and no thrombophilia, we recommend clinical surveillance antepartum and anticoagulant prophylaxis postpartum (Grade 1C). For other pregnant women with a history of a single prior episode of VTE who are not receiving long-term anticoagulant therapy, we recommend one of the following, rather than routine care or full-dose anticoagulation: antepartum prophylactic LMWH/UFH or intermediate-dose LMWH/UFH or clinical surveillance throughout pregnancy plus postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 1C). For such patients with a higher risk thrombophilia, in addition to postpartum prophylaxis, we suggest antepartum prophylactic or intermediate-dose LMWH or prophylactic or intermediate-dose UFH, rather than clinical surveillance (Grade 2C). We suggest that pregnant women with multiple episodes of VTE who are not receiving long-term anticoagulants receive antepartum prophylactic, intermediate-dose, or adjusted-dose LMWH or intermediate or adjusted-dose UFH, followed by postpartum anticoagulants (Grade 2C). For those pregnant women with prior VTE who are receiving long-term anticoagulants, we recommend LMWH or UFH throughout pregnancy (either adjusted-dose LMWH or UFH, 75% of adjusted-dose LMWH, or intermediate-dose LMWH) followed by resumption of long-term anticoagulants postpartum (Grade 1C). We suggest both antepartum and postpartum prophylaxis for pregnant women with no prior history of VTE but antithrombin deficiency (Grade 2C). For all other pregnant women with thrombophilia but no prior VTE, we suggest antepartum clinical surveillance or prophylactic LMWH or UFH, plus postpartum anticoagulants, rather than routine care (Grade 2C). For women with recurrent early pregnancy loss or unexplained late pregnancy loss, we recommend screening for antiphospholipid antibodies (APLAs) [Grade 1A]. For women with these pregnancy complications who test positive for APLAs and have no history of venous or arterial thrombosis, we recommend antepartum administration of prophylactic or intermediate-dose UFH or prophylactic LMWH combined with aspirin (Grade 1B). We recommend that the decision about anticoagulant management during pregnancy for pregnant women with mechanical heart valves include an assessment of additional risk factors for thromboembolism including valve type, position, and history of thromboembolism (Grade 1C). While patient values and preferences are important for all decisions regarding antithrombotic therapy in pregnancy, this is particularly so for women with mechanical heart valves. For these women, we recommend either adjusted-dose bid LMWH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), adjusted-dose UFH throughout pregnancy (Grade 1C), or one of these two regimens until the thirteenth week with warfarin substitution until close to delivery before restarting LMWH or UFH) [Grade 1C]. However, if a pregnant woman with a mechanical heart valve is judged to be at very high risk of thromboembolism and there are concerns about the efficacy and safety of LMWH or UFH as dosed above, we suggest vitamin K antagonists throughout pregnancy with replacement by UFH or LMWH close to delivery, after a thorough discussion of the potential risks and benefits of this approach (Grade 2C).

Sustainability of Collaborative Capacity in Community Health Partnerships

Sustainability is a key requirement for partnership success and a major challenge for such organizations. Despite the critical importance of sustainability to the success of community health partnerships and the many threats to sustainability, there is little evidence that would provide partnerships with clear guidance on long-term viability. This article attempts to (1) develop a conceptual model of sustainability in community health partnerships and (2) identify potential determinants of sustainability using comparative qualitative data from four partnerships from the Community Care Network (CCN) Demonstration Program. Based on a grounded theory examination of qualitative data from the CCNevaluation, the authors hypothesize that there are five primary attributes/ activities of partnerships leading to consequential value and eventually to sustainability of collaborative capacity. They include outcomes-based advocacy, vision-focus balance, systems orientation, infrastructure development, and community linkages. The context in which the partnership operates provides the conditions for determining the appropriateness and relative impact of each of the factors related to creating consequential value in the partnership.

Collaborative Initiatives: Where the Rubber Meets the Road in Community Partnerships

Amajor challenge facing a community partnership is the implementation of its collaborative initiatives. This article examines the progress Community Care Networks (CCNs) made in implementing their initiatives and factors that helped or hindered their progress. Study findings suggest that partnership progress is affected by external market and regulatory factors beyond the control of the partnership, the availability of local community resources to support efforts, the scope and intensity of tasks associated with an initiative, expansion of the partnership to include new members, and the balance of work between partners and paid partnership staff. Implications of study findings for community partnerships include (1) recognizing and anticipating dependency on others, (2) acknowledging that the tasks that lie ahead will be more complicated than imagined, (3) maintaining focus on priorities, and (4) learning to be adaptive and creative, given a constantly changing environment.

Quality improvement in small office settings: an examination of successful practices

BackgroundPhysicians in small to moderate primary care practices in the United States (U.S.) (<25 physicians) face unique challenges in implementing quality improvement (QI) initiatives, including limited resources, small staffs, and inadequate information technology systems 23,36. This qualitative study sought to identify and understand the characteristics and organizational cultures of physicians working in smaller practices who are actively engaged in measurement and quality improvement initiatives.MethodsWe undertook a qualitative study, based on semi-structured, open-ended interviews conducted with practices (N = 39) that used performance data to drive quality improvement activities.ResultsPhysicians indicated that benefits to performing measurement and QI included greater practice efficiency, patient and staff retention, and higher staff and clinician satisfaction with practice. Internal facilitators included the designation of a practice champion, cooperation of other physicians and staff, and the involvement of practice leaders. Time constraints, cost of activities, problems with information management and or technology, lack of motivated staff, and a lack of financial incentives were commonly reported as barriers.ConclusionThese findings shed light on how physicians engage in quality improvement activities, and may help raise awareness of and aid in the implementation of future initiatives in small practices more generally.

Members' perceptions of community care network partnerships' effectiveness

Investment in voluntary partnerships raises important questions: Should we invest in collaboration in moving toward the goals of health system redesign? What makes collaborative groups effective? Given the voluntary nature of these partnerships, membership perceptions of their experiences and the partnership’s effectiveness should be important predictors of success. This article provides a preliminary analyses of perceived effectiveness of participants’ perceptions of their own partnership, particularly focusingon leadership, conflict management, decision-making dynamics, and the breadth and depth of partnership membership. Members’ perceptions that the partnership membership was “sufficiently broad to accomplish objectives” had a negative and highly significant relationship to perceived effectiveness. Members’ perceptions about leadership beingethical was positively related to perceived effectiveness while perceptions that the leadership was not effective a keeping the group focused was negatively related to perceived effectiveness.

Community care networks: Linking vision to outcomes for Community health improvement

This article examines the relationship between progress toward the Community Care Network (CCN) vision and “intermediate outcomes” of 25 community-based health partnerships (CCNs). Specific components of the CCN vision were community accountability, community health focus, creation of a seamless service continuum, and managing under limited resources. Four community outcome dimensions were evaluated: access, cost, health, and quality of service delivery integration. Overall progress toward theCCN vision was significantly positively related to average intermediate outcome score and most highly correlated with two dimensions: access and quality of service integration. Qualitative analysis suggests that CCN sites accomplished the most along two dimensions—access and health—noting that intermediate health outcomes generally were in health assessment and information rather than actual health status improvement. Keys to outcome achievement appear to be (1) clearly focused intervention; (2) explicit, ongoing outcome measurement; and (3) strong integration of separate intervention components.

Building Academic Geriatric Nursing Capacity: Results after the first 10 years and implications for the future

In 2000, the John A. Hartford Foundation launched a multi-million dollar investment in Building Academic Geriatric Nursing Capacity (BAGNC) at the American Academy of Nursing (AAN). After a decade of focused support to increase scholarship, research, leadership, and institutional collaboration, is there evidence this program is successful in achieving its goals? Equally important, as the need for quality geriatric nursing care increases with the expanding aging population and associated complex health conditions, how does the experience and outcomes of this program inform nursings future? To address both questions, the authors first provide an overview of geriatric nursing prior to and up to the time the BAGNC program began, then review results of an external evaluation of the BAGNC program, and finally propose goals and strategies for the next 20 years of academic geriatric nursing.

Using Theories of Action to Guide National Program Evaluation and Local Strategy in the Community Care Network Demonstration

Evaluations of multisite community-based projects are notoriously difficult to conceptualize and conduct. Projects may share an overarching vision but operate in varying contexts and pursue different initiatives. One tool that can assist evaluators facing these challenges is to developa “theory of action” (TOA) that identifies critical assumptions regarding how a program expects to achieve its goals. Community Care Network (CCN) evaluators used the TOA to refine research questions, define key variables, relate questions to each other, and identify when we might realistically expect to observe answers. In this article, the authors present their national-level CCN TOA. They also worked with sites to helpthem “surface” their local TOA; the article analyzes the results to determine the content, clarity, extent of evidence base, and strategic orientation of theories articulated by different sites.

Addressing the Need for Public Reporting of Comparative Hospice Quality: A Focus Group Study

BACKGROUND Standardized measures are available to assess hospice quality across multiple domains, but no information on hospice quality is available to the public. A study was conducted in 2006 to explore the publics knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes about hospice care and their responses to the idea of a public report on comparative hospice quality. METHODS Six focus groups were conducted, two with individuals with direct hospice care experience and four with people without experience. Focus groups were videotaped, transcribed, and analyzed for themes and patterns of convergence and divergence. RESULTS Focus group participants without hospice experience knew of hospice but had little accurate information about hospices services, who could benefit, or how it is financed. Even some with hospice experience were unaware of services such as bereavement support. Participants saw hospice as appropriate only when the family could no longer provide care. They wanted a public report to include information about hospice, help in comparing hospice to other kinds of end-of-life care, details on accreditation, staff and services of individual hospices, quality comparisons, and decision support. Hospice was viewed as providing a broad range of services to the family as well as the patient. DISCUSSION This research will provide guidance for the development of an evidence-based model report on hospice quality that includes substantial educational material. It also supports the selection of measures for such a report that would resonate with the public, which makes the use of a comparative quality report more likely. The next step in this research is to develop and formatively test such a report, so that it can be pilot tested with willing hospices in a community offering a choice of providers. Considerable additional work is needed to ensure that hospice becomes more understandable and transparent to the public.