´óÏóÊÓƵ

The Importance of Effective Implementation

After reviewing the evidence and selecting a venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment model, the improvement team will begin gearing up for the all-important implementation phase. If performed skillfully, implementation of the VTE prevention protocol into orders at the point of care will lift adequate prophylaxis rates to 80 percent or more and set the stage for effective measurement, monitoring, and other interventions to eventually reach Level 5 on the Hierarchy of Reliability (Table 1.1).

Skilled implementation can overcome the weakness of a suboptimal VTE prevention protocol; similarly, flawed implementation of an excellent VTE prevention protocol will result in mediocrity and failure to reach the goal of reducing hospital-associated VTE (HA-VTE). Effective implementation of the VTE prevention protocol addresses the first four failure modes discussed in Chapter 2:

• No standardized protocols or order sets for VTE prevention exist.
• Order sets and prompts that reference VTE prevention are in place, but they provide inadequate guidance.
• Order sets with guidance are in place, but the order set is bypassed or not used.
• Order sets with guidance are in place and used, but used incorrectly.

With implementation, the improvement team will want to add more granular detail to the general VTE risk assessment models depicted in Chapter 4. For example, dosing of unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) needs to be spelled out, and the mechanisms and responsibility for dosing adjustments for renal failure, obesity, and other conditions have to be defined. In addition, the team will want to engage with different services to determine which ones will need a variation from the general VTE prevention protocol. The potential pitfalls in these steps are numerous, and adding more layers of guidance for special populations can lead to complexity and poor efficiency of ordering.

Well-developed and effective clinical decision support (CDS) involves getting the right information, to the right people, in the right intervention formats, through the right channels, at the right points in workflow.¹ A clinical decision template that outlines different desired functionality at each stage may help an implementation team think about building optimal CDS and measurement into different steps in the process of delivering optimal prophylaxis to the patient.

It is helpful at this point to identify the principles for effective implementation of VTE protocols in CDS. These principles bring the protocol guidance effectively to bear at the point of care and build the infrastructure for other interventions and monitoring. This can save effort and time down the road.

Five Principles for Effective Implementation in Clinical Decision Support

Principle 1: Keep It Simple for the End User

Improvement teams must strike a fine balance between providing a good risk assessment for the majority of the inpatient population and keeping the process simple and efficient for the end user. Almost always, simpler is better and less is more. Usability is immensely important, and success or failure may hinge on it.²

It is far more effective to provide less guidance in the time and space where prophylaxis is ordered. For substantial minority populations with special needs (e.g., OB/GYN, spinal surgery, or cardiovascular surgery patients), a dedicated order set tailored to them is likely a better approach than inserting details about these populations into a general medicine or surgery VTE prevention order set.

It is important to involve frontline ordering providers to make sure the VTE protocol is easy to use. Without their input, implementation will not go smoothly.

It is also important to minimize the calculations and data entry end users have to make and to automate the process for them. Even ticking off multiple risk factors for VTE in a point-based model becomes a tiresome task many providers will skip, particularly if it is already evident to them what prophylaxis is needed. For some risk factors or contraindications, it may help to auto-populate data elements from elsewhere in the record. Age, body mass index, creatinine clearance, already prescribed antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, and platelet counts are a few examples of discrete data elements that could be auto-populated.

There are at times several acceptable options for prophylaxis, and there are often multiple choices for a given LMWH or oral anticoagulant. Improvement teams can simplify the work for the end user and reinforce standardization by streamlining the choices. For example, while the 9^th edition of the American College of Chest Physicians on Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis (AT9) allows a wide variety of prophylaxis options for major orthopedic surgery, the protocol might only list the preferred institutional choices.

Principle 2: Do Not Interrupt Workflow

In general, an intervention that interrupts workflow will be rejected. This has several implications for design and implementation of VTE prevention order sets.

VTE prevention order sets enjoy the highest utilization when they simply appear as a module that is fully integrated into admission and transfer order sets that are already in use, rather than as a standalone order set clinicians must go out of their way to identify and choose. For example, confusion and workflow interruption can occur if nurses and physicians on the floor are not in sync on how the risk assessment is managed.

The VTE risk assessment and bleeding risk assessment are ideally performed quickly and concurrently when the choices for that combination of risks are presented directly to the provider, without interruption by intervals in time or space. In some computerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems, after a VTE risk level is determined, the appropriate prophylaxis options for the chosen level of VTE risk emerge from their nested position under the risk designation. In other CPOE systems, the risk assessment data entered on the first screen trigger the appearance of a second screen that contains only the choices appropriate for that level of risk in an algorithmic fashion. In these cases, the ordering provider is not asked to remember the risk designation from a previous screen, add up points, and so forth. These tasks are either done for the provider or are eliminated from the process to provide a smooth and uninterrupted workflow.

Principle 3: Design Reliability Into the Process

Part of the improvement team's job is to engineer higher reliability into the process of preventing HA-VTE. To achieve breakthrough improvement, the team must move beyond traditional methods (e.g., personal checklists, working harder next time, and education) to design order sets and reinforcing interventions that use at least one of the following high-reliability strategies:

• The desired action has a forcing function. Completion of a VTE prevention order set can be made mandatory by a forcing function. An electronic or human forcing function ensures that every patient being admitted or transferred in the hospital undergoes a VTE risk assessment.
• The desired action is the default action (i.e., not doing the desired action requires opting out). Only the protocol-preferred choices can be presented to ordering providers for any given combination of VTE and bleeding risk they designate. Choices other than those on the preferred list can be made, but a clinician must first explicitly opt out. For example, a progressive ambulation/mobility protocol can be made the default mode for physical therapy and nursing to pursue unless the physician provides guidance and opts out of that pathway.
• The desired action is prompted by a reminder or a decision aid. A daily reminder to reassess and certify the need for a central venous catheter is an example that can reduce upper extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and line-associated infections.
• The desired action is standardized into a process (i.e., it takes advantage of work habits or patterns of behavior so that deviation feels weird). Standardized order sets with embedded risk assessment are an obvious example. Surveying existing order sets impacting VTE prophylaxis as part of the initial needs assessment, and replacing outdated VTE prevention order sets with new standardized ones, can help to discourage physicians from making up their own personal order sets and bypassing the standardized pathways.
• The desired action is scheduled to occur at known intervals (e.g., integrating DVT prophylaxis assessments into a larger quality and safety checklist to be reviewed daily).
• Responsibilities for a desired action are redundant. If nurses were to focus on patients who were not already on prophylaxis, for example, and to use the same protocol that physicians were using, their redundant check of VTE prophylaxis could be efficient and useful. An electronic alert might provide some of the same functionality.

If designed well, the VTE protocol will be an intervention that invokes several of these high-reliability strategies.

Principle 4: Pilot Interventions on a Small Scale

Piloting on a small scale creates opportunities to iron out glitches before implementing more broadly. Small-scale pilots can be as simple as a 5-minute focus group where five physicians give feedback on several versions of the protocol. Taking an order set out for a "test drive" is far more effective, however, when the pilot risk assessment and order set are applied to patient case scenarios, as ease of use and issues of ambiguity become much more apparent. Piloting measurement and monitoring techniques with early assessment is also highly recommended.

Principle 5: Monitor Use of the Protocol (and Plan for Measurement)

Rolling out the protocol is only the beginning. The improvement team must have a plan that ensures the VTE protocol is part of the completed admission orders for every patient who enters the facility.

A central challenge of standardization is constructing protocols that work for the great majority of patients while allowing for individualization of treatment. It is reasonable to anticipate variations from the protocol, but the team should capture these instances, learn from them, and take steps to reduce them. When providers bypass the protocol, their reasons might derive from logistics and deviations from normal workflow rather than resistance to the concept of standardization. Questions the team can ask include:

• Why is the order set not used in some areas?
• Can it be integrated into other heavily used order sets?
• Which types of admissions are inadvertently bypassing the protocol?
• Which patients do not fit the protocol?
• Can the protocol be changed so it fits more patients and situations?
• Which providers would benefit from focused educational efforts?
• Is the protocol stocked and restocked (if on paper) and in the workflow in all the key areas in the hospital?

The team will also want to plan for measurement. Automating measures is easier if planned into the process at inception. Meeting with the CPOE and/or the information technology team early and often about order set design and how to make measurement an integral part of the process can help. Some examples to consider:

• Storing information as discrete data elements as they can be recalled and organized into meaningful reports more easily than free text.
• Capturing all data element choices in the ordering process, including the declared DVT risk level and any contraindications to anticoagulant prophylaxis.
• Making graduated compression stockings or intermittent pneumatic compression devices (IPCDs) orders into discrete data elements, as well as the documentation for whether they are in place and turned on. A nurse could, for example, be asked to chart each shift whether IPCD was on or off and, if off, a pull-down menu could capture the reason.
• Capturing ambulation status as a discrete data element in monitoring adherence to protocols. Agree on an operational definition of full versus impaired mobility and structure documentation to routinely capture whether the patient is meeting that standard.

Many centers have adapted definitions such as "ambulates independently outside of room twice daily" or "ambulates 50 feet or more independently."

It may help to also think ahead about how to audit patients and determine whether they are on protocol-directed, adequate prophylaxis. In general, complexity of risk assessment in the ordering process will lead to similar complexity in monitoring whether patients are on appropriate prophylaxis. The importance of ease of use applies to both the ordering process and the measurement tools the team will need to deploy.

A properly designed order set, when well positioned and implemented, will prevent errors and get most patients on the correct prophylaxis. Monitoring order set use, and designing an ongoing process to identify patients who have fallen through the cracks, can spur mitigation of lapses in care concurrently. Finally, redesign of the process and order sets should continue to improve the system.^3,4

Next Page
Return to Contents