The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology has released a new clinical practice guideline for the treatment of luminal Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults.

“In the last decade, treatment paradigms have changed, recognizing that certain clinical parameters carry an increased risk of progressive and disabling disease,” wrote Remo Panaccione, MD, of the University of Calgary (Canada) and collaborators. Dr. Panaccione is the lead author of this practice guideline copublished in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

The expert consensus panel consisted of 20 voting members, including both academic and community gastroenterologists, in addition to a specialist nurse practitioner. Other nonvoting members included two GRADE experts, lay observers, and a patient representative.

The panel systematically reviewed the body of literature for studies related to the management of CD in adults. After applying the search criteria, the team found that the majority of evidence was extracted from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials.

Quality of evidence and risk of bias was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. The quality of evidence for each consensus statement was classified as either high, moderate, low, or very low, based on the methodology’s criteria.

The consensus statements were finalized at a face-to-face meeting in Toronto held in September 2016. Prior to completion, a web-based system was used to allow for anonymous voting on level of agreement for each consensus statement.

The new guideline provides evidence-based recommendations about optimal treatment approaches for patients with mild to severe active luminal CD in an ambulatory setting, with particular focus on six major drug classes, including corticosteroids, biologic therapies, immunosuppressants, 5-aminosalicylate, antibiotics, and other therapies.

The consensus group recommended against the use of 5-aminosalicylate or antibiotics as induction or maintenance treatment strategies. Alternatively, they suggested that corticosteroids, including budesonide, could be used as induction therapy, but not as maintenance therapy.

“Parenteral methotrexate was proposed for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD,” they wrote.

With respect to immunosuppressive therapy, thiopurine agents could be an appropriate option for maintenance therapy in certain low-risk patients, but were not recommended as induction therapy, according to the guideline.

In patients who fail with conventional induction therapies, Dr. Panaccione and colleagues recommended that biological treatments, including ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, could be used. No consensus was reached on the concomitant use of immunosuppressants and biologics.

In recent years, an increasing amount of evidence has emphasized the importance of mucosal healing as a key goal of therapy. In particular, the use of some therapies can result in mucosal healing and symptomatic improvement in certain patients with luminal CD.

In addition, the authors explained that mucosal healing has been linked to better clinical outcomes over the short and long term. As a result, the recommendations in the guideline target complete remission, defined as both endoscopic and symptomatic remission.

“The outcome assessed in most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been either symptomatic remission or symptomatic response, with only more contemporary clinical trials including endoscopic outcomes,” the guideline authors wrote.

For this reason, the GRADE criteria–based quality of evidence for some of the consensus statements had to be lowered, they noted.

The panel acknowledged the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into treatment decision making; however, they reported that many gaps in clinical practice still remain.

“In many instances, factors that influence patient decisions relating to therapy choice and goals of therapy are not the same as those of the treating clinician,” they wrote. “[Current] surveys indicate a discrepancy between patient and physician treatment goals.”

In response, the guideline authors highlighted the importance of improved patient-physician collaboration and patient education.

The guideline was supported through grant funding provided by AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Amgen, Baxter, Janssen, Shire, Takeda, and several others.
 

SOURCE: Panaccione R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Mar 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.02.043.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology has released a new clinical practice guideline for the treatment of luminal Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults.

“In the last decade, treatment paradigms have changed, recognizing that certain clinical parameters carry an increased risk of progressive and disabling disease,” wrote Remo Panaccione, MD, of the University of Calgary (Canada) and collaborators. Dr. Panaccione is the lead author of this practice guideline copublished in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

The expert consensus panel consisted of 20 voting members, including both academic and community gastroenterologists, in addition to a specialist nurse practitioner. Other nonvoting members included two GRADE experts, lay observers, and a patient representative.

The panel systematically reviewed the body of literature for studies related to the management of CD in adults. After applying the search criteria, the team found that the majority of evidence was extracted from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials.

Quality of evidence and risk of bias was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. The quality of evidence for each consensus statement was classified as either high, moderate, low, or very low, based on the methodology’s criteria.

The consensus statements were finalized at a face-to-face meeting in Toronto held in September 2016. Prior to completion, a web-based system was used to allow for anonymous voting on level of agreement for each consensus statement.

The new guideline provides evidence-based recommendations about optimal treatment approaches for patients with mild to severe active luminal CD in an ambulatory setting, with particular focus on six major drug classes, including corticosteroids, biologic therapies, immunosuppressants, 5-aminosalicylate, antibiotics, and other therapies.

The consensus group recommended against the use of 5-aminosalicylate or antibiotics as induction or maintenance treatment strategies. Alternatively, they suggested that corticosteroids, including budesonide, could be used as induction therapy, but not as maintenance therapy.

“Parenteral methotrexate was proposed for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD,” they wrote.

With respect to immunosuppressive therapy, thiopurine agents could be an appropriate option for maintenance therapy in certain low-risk patients, but were not recommended as induction therapy, according to the guideline.

In patients who fail with conventional induction therapies, Dr. Panaccione and colleagues recommended that biological treatments, including ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, could be used. No consensus was reached on the concomitant use of immunosuppressants and biologics.

In recent years, an increasing amount of evidence has emphasized the importance of mucosal healing as a key goal of therapy. In particular, the use of some therapies can result in mucosal healing and symptomatic improvement in certain patients with luminal CD.

In addition, the authors explained that mucosal healing has been linked to better clinical outcomes over the short and long term. As a result, the recommendations in the guideline target complete remission, defined as both endoscopic and symptomatic remission.

“The outcome assessed in most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been either symptomatic remission or symptomatic response, with only more contemporary clinical trials including endoscopic outcomes,” the guideline authors wrote.

For this reason, the GRADE criteria–based quality of evidence for some of the consensus statements had to be lowered, they noted.

The panel acknowledged the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into treatment decision making; however, they reported that many gaps in clinical practice still remain.

“In many instances, factors that influence patient decisions relating to therapy choice and goals of therapy are not the same as those of the treating clinician,” they wrote. “[Current] surveys indicate a discrepancy between patient and physician treatment goals.”

In response, the guideline authors highlighted the importance of improved patient-physician collaboration and patient education.

The guideline was supported through grant funding provided by AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Amgen, Baxter, Janssen, Shire, Takeda, and several others.
 

SOURCE: Panaccione R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Mar 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.02.043.

The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology has released a new clinical practice guideline for the treatment of luminal Crohn’s disease (CD) in adults.

“In the last decade, treatment paradigms have changed, recognizing that certain clinical parameters carry an increased risk of progressive and disabling disease,” wrote Remo Panaccione, MD, of the University of Calgary (Canada) and collaborators. Dr. Panaccione is the lead author of this practice guideline copublished in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology and the Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology.

The expert consensus panel consisted of 20 voting members, including both academic and community gastroenterologists, in addition to a specialist nurse practitioner. Other nonvoting members included two GRADE experts, lay observers, and a patient representative.

The panel systematically reviewed the body of literature for studies related to the management of CD in adults. After applying the search criteria, the team found that the majority of evidence was extracted from systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials.

Quality of evidence and risk of bias was assessed using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology. The quality of evidence for each consensus statement was classified as either high, moderate, low, or very low, based on the methodology’s criteria.

The consensus statements were finalized at a face-to-face meeting in Toronto held in September 2016. Prior to completion, a web-based system was used to allow for anonymous voting on level of agreement for each consensus statement.

The new guideline provides evidence-based recommendations about optimal treatment approaches for patients with mild to severe active luminal CD in an ambulatory setting, with particular focus on six major drug classes, including corticosteroids, biologic therapies, immunosuppressants, 5-aminosalicylate, antibiotics, and other therapies.

The consensus group recommended against the use of 5-aminosalicylate or antibiotics as induction or maintenance treatment strategies. Alternatively, they suggested that corticosteroids, including budesonide, could be used as induction therapy, but not as maintenance therapy.

“Parenteral methotrexate was proposed for induction and maintenance therapy in patients with corticosteroid-dependent CD,” they wrote.

With respect to immunosuppressive therapy, thiopurine agents could be an appropriate option for maintenance therapy in certain low-risk patients, but were not recommended as induction therapy, according to the guideline.

In patients who fail with conventional induction therapies, Dr. Panaccione and colleagues recommended that biological treatments, including ustekinumab, vedolizumab, and anti–tumor necrosis factor agents, could be used. No consensus was reached on the concomitant use of immunosuppressants and biologics.

In recent years, an increasing amount of evidence has emphasized the importance of mucosal healing as a key goal of therapy. In particular, the use of some therapies can result in mucosal healing and symptomatic improvement in certain patients with luminal CD.

In addition, the authors explained that mucosal healing has been linked to better clinical outcomes over the short and long term. As a result, the recommendations in the guideline target complete remission, defined as both endoscopic and symptomatic remission.

“The outcome assessed in most randomized controlled trials (RCTs) has been either symptomatic remission or symptomatic response, with only more contemporary clinical trials including endoscopic outcomes,” the guideline authors wrote.

For this reason, the GRADE criteria–based quality of evidence for some of the consensus statements had to be lowered, they noted.

The panel acknowledged the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into treatment decision making; however, they reported that many gaps in clinical practice still remain.

“In many instances, factors that influence patient decisions relating to therapy choice and goals of therapy are not the same as those of the treating clinician,” they wrote. “[Current] surveys indicate a discrepancy between patient and physician treatment goals.”

In response, the guideline authors highlighted the importance of improved patient-physician collaboration and patient education.

The guideline was supported through grant funding provided by AbbVie, Janssen, Pfizer, and Takeda. The authors reported financial affiliations with AbbVie, Amgen, Baxter, Janssen, Shire, Takeda, and several others.
 

SOURCE: Panaccione R et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019 Mar 7. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2019.02.043.

Reference

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Evidence Review for Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: Primary Care Interventions. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-evidence-review/tobacco-and-nicotine-use-prevention-in-children-and-adolescents-primary-care-interventions. Accessed July 8, 2019.

Reference

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Evidence Review for Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: Primary Care Interventions. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-evidence-review/tobacco-and-nicotine-use-prevention-in-children-and-adolescents-primary-care-interventions. Accessed July 8, 2019.

Reference

1. US Preventive Services Task Force. Draft Evidence Review for Prevention and Cessation of Tobacco Use in Children and Adolescents: Primary Care Interventions. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/draft-evidence-review/tobacco-and-nicotine-use-prevention-in-children-and-adolescents-primary-care-interventions. Accessed July 8, 2019.

Dear Colleagues,

It’s hard to believe that The New Gastroenterologist (TNG) is now in its 5th year of publication! Since the inception of TNG, it has been a true honor and pleasure to serve as the inaugural editor in chief (EIC), and it has been an experience that I will never forget. When the idea of TNG was first conceived nearly 5 years ago, the goal of the publication was to provide a dedicated home for content for early-career GIs and trainees, an area that was a clear void in the GI community. Over 4 years later, TNG remains a one-of-a-kind resource for our field, and I hope that you have enjoyed the content published.

As my term is ending soon, it is my pleasure to turn TNG over to the next EIC, Vijaya Rao from the University of Chicago. I have no doubt that Vijaya will do a fantastic job continuing TNG, and I am excited to see how she applies many of her innovative ideas to grow the publication and make it even more valuable to the early-career and trainee GI community. Finally, I would just like to thank all of the people who have made invaluable contributions to make TNG a success including Erin Landis and Ryan Farrell from the AGA; the staff of our publisher Frontline Medical Communications, especially Lora McGlade; and current editor in chief of GI & Hepatology News, John Allen.

As for this issue of TNG, my last issue as EIC, there is a fantastic line-up of content. The “In Focus” article, by Diana Curras-Martin and Susana Gonzalez (Cornell), addresses the controversial topic of gastric intestinal metaplasia, and will no doubt be very helpful for dealing with this condition when it’s encountered in clinical practice. Additionally, Edward Barnes (UNC Chapel Hill) covers the importance of mentoring during the early-career stage, while Josh Sloan (Hopkins) provides an overview of options for extra training in motility, including motility fellowships.

Also in this issue of TNG, Rishi Naik (Vanderbilt) outlines some of the important lessons he learned during his 1-year term as the Gastroenterology editorial fellow, and Latha Alaparthi (Gastroenterology Center of Connecticut) discusses tips for building an effective community practice as part of our “Private Practice Perspectives” section cosponsored by the Digestive Health Physicians Association. Finally, lawyers Matthew D’Emilio and Jeremy Riley cover estate planning, which is a topic that is important for all to be familiar with, regardless of age or current health status.

If you’re interested in contributing or have ideas for TNG, please contact me ([email protected]), incoming editor in chief Vijaya Rao ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Thank you, this has been a true pleasure.

Sincerely,

Bryson W. Katona, MD, PhD
(outgoing) Editor in Chief

Dr. Katona is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dear Colleagues,

It’s hard to believe that The New Gastroenterologist (TNG) is now in its 5th year of publication! Since the inception of TNG, it has been a true honor and pleasure to serve as the inaugural editor in chief (EIC), and it has been an experience that I will never forget. When the idea of TNG was first conceived nearly 5 years ago, the goal of the publication was to provide a dedicated home for content for early-career GIs and trainees, an area that was a clear void in the GI community. Over 4 years later, TNG remains a one-of-a-kind resource for our field, and I hope that you have enjoyed the content published.

As my term is ending soon, it is my pleasure to turn TNG over to the next EIC, Vijaya Rao from the University of Chicago. I have no doubt that Vijaya will do a fantastic job continuing TNG, and I am excited to see how she applies many of her innovative ideas to grow the publication and make it even more valuable to the early-career and trainee GI community. Finally, I would just like to thank all of the people who have made invaluable contributions to make TNG a success including Erin Landis and Ryan Farrell from the AGA; the staff of our publisher Frontline Medical Communications, especially Lora McGlade; and current editor in chief of GI & Hepatology News, John Allen.

As for this issue of TNG, my last issue as EIC, there is a fantastic line-up of content. The “In Focus” article, by Diana Curras-Martin and Susana Gonzalez (Cornell), addresses the controversial topic of gastric intestinal metaplasia, and will no doubt be very helpful for dealing with this condition when it’s encountered in clinical practice. Additionally, Edward Barnes (UNC Chapel Hill) covers the importance of mentoring during the early-career stage, while Josh Sloan (Hopkins) provides an overview of options for extra training in motility, including motility fellowships.

Also in this issue of TNG, Rishi Naik (Vanderbilt) outlines some of the important lessons he learned during his 1-year term as the Gastroenterology editorial fellow, and Latha Alaparthi (Gastroenterology Center of Connecticut) discusses tips for building an effective community practice as part of our “Private Practice Perspectives” section cosponsored by the Digestive Health Physicians Association. Finally, lawyers Matthew D’Emilio and Jeremy Riley cover estate planning, which is a topic that is important for all to be familiar with, regardless of age or current health status.

If you’re interested in contributing or have ideas for TNG, please contact me ([email protected]), incoming editor in chief Vijaya Rao ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Thank you, this has been a true pleasure.

Sincerely,

Bryson W. Katona, MD, PhD
(outgoing) Editor in Chief

Dr. Katona is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Dear Colleagues,

It’s hard to believe that The New Gastroenterologist (TNG) is now in its 5th year of publication! Since the inception of TNG, it has been a true honor and pleasure to serve as the inaugural editor in chief (EIC), and it has been an experience that I will never forget. When the idea of TNG was first conceived nearly 5 years ago, the goal of the publication was to provide a dedicated home for content for early-career GIs and trainees, an area that was a clear void in the GI community. Over 4 years later, TNG remains a one-of-a-kind resource for our field, and I hope that you have enjoyed the content published.

As my term is ending soon, it is my pleasure to turn TNG over to the next EIC, Vijaya Rao from the University of Chicago. I have no doubt that Vijaya will do a fantastic job continuing TNG, and I am excited to see how she applies many of her innovative ideas to grow the publication and make it even more valuable to the early-career and trainee GI community. Finally, I would just like to thank all of the people who have made invaluable contributions to make TNG a success including Erin Landis and Ryan Farrell from the AGA; the staff of our publisher Frontline Medical Communications, especially Lora McGlade; and current editor in chief of GI & Hepatology News, John Allen.

As for this issue of TNG, my last issue as EIC, there is a fantastic line-up of content. The “In Focus” article, by Diana Curras-Martin and Susana Gonzalez (Cornell), addresses the controversial topic of gastric intestinal metaplasia, and will no doubt be very helpful for dealing with this condition when it’s encountered in clinical practice. Additionally, Edward Barnes (UNC Chapel Hill) covers the importance of mentoring during the early-career stage, while Josh Sloan (Hopkins) provides an overview of options for extra training in motility, including motility fellowships.

Also in this issue of TNG, Rishi Naik (Vanderbilt) outlines some of the important lessons he learned during his 1-year term as the Gastroenterology editorial fellow, and Latha Alaparthi (Gastroenterology Center of Connecticut) discusses tips for building an effective community practice as part of our “Private Practice Perspectives” section cosponsored by the Digestive Health Physicians Association. Finally, lawyers Matthew D’Emilio and Jeremy Riley cover estate planning, which is a topic that is important for all to be familiar with, regardless of age or current health status.

If you’re interested in contributing or have ideas for TNG, please contact me ([email protected]), incoming editor in chief Vijaya Rao ([email protected]), or Ryan Farrell (rfarrell@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Thank you, this has been a true pleasure.

Sincerely,

Bryson W. Katona, MD, PhD
(outgoing) Editor in Chief

Dr. Katona is an assistant professor of medicine in the division of gastroenterology at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

We commend Gottenborg and Pierce on their well-written summary of the 2013 National Institutes of Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on intravenous fluids (IV) for adults.¹ One area of the guidelines that we believe should be modified is the outdated recommendation for prescribing 1 mmol/kg/day of sodium.² At the guideline recommended rate of 25-30 mL/kg/day, a 75 kg adult would be prescribed a solution of 25-30 mmol/L of sodium or 0.18% saline, which is in stark contrast to the more recent recommendations of isotonic fluids from the 2018 American Academy of Pediatrics and 2015 NICE pediatric guidelines.^3,4 0.18% saline is extremely hypotonic compared to plasma sodium and would place hospitalized patients at significant risk for developing hospital-acquired hyponatremia.

The recommendations for hypotonic solutions were largely developed from theoretical research in the 1950s before the first description of the syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone.⁵ Hospitalized patients are at significant risk for nonosmotic stimuli for antidiuretic hormone secretion, and hypotonic fluids increase the risk of hyponatremia, which can have catastrophic complications. We believe the pediatric evidence should be extrapolated and included with the supporting (albeit limited) adult evidence, and that when indicated, isotonic fluids should be the maintenance fluid for most hospitalized adults.^3-4,6

Disclosures

We have no relevant conflicts of interest to report. No payment or services from a third party were received for any aspect of this submitted work. We have no financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what was written in this submitted work.

We commend Gottenborg and Pierce on their well-written summary of the 2013 National Institutes of Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on intravenous fluids (IV) for adults.¹ One area of the guidelines that we believe should be modified is the outdated recommendation for prescribing 1 mmol/kg/day of sodium.² At the guideline recommended rate of 25-30 mL/kg/day, a 75 kg adult would be prescribed a solution of 25-30 mmol/L of sodium or 0.18% saline, which is in stark contrast to the more recent recommendations of isotonic fluids from the 2018 American Academy of Pediatrics and 2015 NICE pediatric guidelines.^3,4 0.18% saline is extremely hypotonic compared to plasma sodium and would place hospitalized patients at significant risk for developing hospital-acquired hyponatremia.

The recommendations for hypotonic solutions were largely developed from theoretical research in the 1950s before the first description of the syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone.⁵ Hospitalized patients are at significant risk for nonosmotic stimuli for antidiuretic hormone secretion, and hypotonic fluids increase the risk of hyponatremia, which can have catastrophic complications. We believe the pediatric evidence should be extrapolated and included with the supporting (albeit limited) adult evidence, and that when indicated, isotonic fluids should be the maintenance fluid for most hospitalized adults.^3-4,6

Disclosures

We have no relevant conflicts of interest to report. No payment or services from a third party were received for any aspect of this submitted work. We have no financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what was written in this submitted work.

We commend Gottenborg and Pierce on their well-written summary of the 2013 National Institutes of Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines on intravenous fluids (IV) for adults.¹ One area of the guidelines that we believe should be modified is the outdated recommendation for prescribing 1 mmol/kg/day of sodium.² At the guideline recommended rate of 25-30 mL/kg/day, a 75 kg adult would be prescribed a solution of 25-30 mmol/L of sodium or 0.18% saline, which is in stark contrast to the more recent recommendations of isotonic fluids from the 2018 American Academy of Pediatrics and 2015 NICE pediatric guidelines.^3,4 0.18% saline is extremely hypotonic compared to plasma sodium and would place hospitalized patients at significant risk for developing hospital-acquired hyponatremia.

The recommendations for hypotonic solutions were largely developed from theoretical research in the 1950s before the first description of the syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone.⁵ Hospitalized patients are at significant risk for nonosmotic stimuli for antidiuretic hormone secretion, and hypotonic fluids increase the risk of hyponatremia, which can have catastrophic complications. We believe the pediatric evidence should be extrapolated and included with the supporting (albeit limited) adult evidence, and that when indicated, isotonic fluids should be the maintenance fluid for most hospitalized adults.^3-4,6

Disclosures

We have no relevant conflicts of interest to report. No payment or services from a third party were received for any aspect of this submitted work. We have no financial relationships with entities in the bio-medical arena that could be perceived to influence, or that give the appearance of potentially influencing, what was written in this submitted work.

With the increasing percentage of our gross national product being allotted to healthcare and concerns about the care received by patients, the number of measures to assess the quality and efficiency of care delivered by healthcare professionals has increased. The paper by Mueller et al.¹ adds to our understanding of an important yet relatively understudied group of patients: those that require transfer from one inpatient facility to another. In general, these patients are sicker and exhibit poor outcomes, especially with time-sensitive management conditions, such as cerebrovascular accidents, or conditions where the transfer itself may cause harm to the patient, such as the case of an infant born prematurely. However, transferring patients with less time-dependent conditions may not be associated with such negative results.¹ The uniqueness of interhospital transfers is attributed to their ability to provide insights into the care practices of other actors within the healthcare system, namely, the transferring hospital and the larger healthcare system, and to describe how the care quality may change in hospitals during periods of stress, such as during overcrowding or high patient acuity.

As described by Mueller et al. the care and outcomes of patients transferred to a hospital may provide information regarding the key aspects of care at the receiving hospital; these aspects include the capability for triage of potentially high-acuity patients and the management of such patients during periods of crowding and organizational stress. These measures of efficiency have rarely been studied in relation to the care provided to patients and their ultimate outcomes. The most studied efficiency measure is hospital crowding, which has been shown in numerous studies to be associated with lower efficiency as measured by the length of stay, lower quality of care, and higher mortality.^2-3 This report by Mueller et al. is one of the first papers to highlight how other aspects of the care delivery system, including the triage practices and the response of a hospital system to stress, may influence care outcomes. The limitation of other studies in exploring the relationship between the measures of efficiency and quality of care, as noted by a systematic review of healthcare efficiency measures by Hussey et al.⁴ emphasizes the need to understand the drivers of low quality of care and to determine the specific times at which such care may be compromised by other factors, such as patient volumes.

Although interhospital transfers may offer certain insights into the efficiency of care delivered at the hospitals receiving these patients, they are generally rare and centered on a few quaternary hospitals within a region.³ In addition, the Mueller paper reveals that not all these transfers have high disease acuity, particularly for cardiac patients. Whether claims-based approaches to risk adjustment would sufficiently differentiate the reasons for the transfer/failure to transfer of patients is unclear and thus may be affected by the selection bias. With these issues, the outcome of transferred patients may be only of limited value when assessing the care quality of hospitals that generally receive transferred patients from other medical institutions within a given geographic area.⁵

Interhospital transfers may provide insights into the care of patients at the hospitals which transfer out such patients, focusing on the appropriateness of transfers, how these hospitals operate when such a sick patient arrives at that hospital, and the outcomes of patients with conditions that may require transfer. A few studies have explored the preventable transfer, particularly for trauma patients, where a preventable transfer was defined as a transfer that was was not admitted to the receiving hospital and did not receive any procedures or testing. Although not readily defined for numerous conditions, such a measure would provide insights into how hospitals decide whether a patient requires care at a higher-level hospital and assessing the processes needed to optimize this decision-making process, including where the patient ultimately is transferred. In a study of patients with acute myocardial infarction, 36.8% of cases that required transfer were not directed to hospitals with the best outcomes as measured by 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates within a given geographic region.⁶ Such decisions would contribute to the potential worse outcomes observed in patients requiring interhospital transfer.

Finally, transfers provide insights into the functioning of the larger healthcare system. The measures assessing the functioning of the healthcare system are rare. In theory, interhospital transfers meet the goals of a functioning regional healthcare system by matching the patients to facilities with the suitable capabilities to manage the patient’s given type of illness or injury. Such a system, however, requires collaboration between hospitals who otherwise compete for patients. The literature suggests that such collaboration is widely variable and dependent on patient factors, such as the types of conditions and their insurance status,⁷ and the costs required by hospitals to add the services needed to care for increasingly ill patients. In addition, the growth of so-called narrow insurance networks, which limit the number of hospitals an insurance company will include on their preferred network, may place barriers on the appropriate location of such transfers based on the quality of the receiving hospital.⁸

The paper by Mueller et al. adds to the literature the unique aspects of the care needed by the patients requiring interhospital transfer. Unlike most other measures of care quality and efficiency, interhospital transfers potentially offer knowledge about the quality of the larger healthcare system, assessing the appropriateness and ultimate outcomes not only of patients who are transferred but similarly sick patients who could have potentially benefited from a transfer and how the actors within the system may respond to periods of high patient load and stress. By understanding the drivers of the appropriateness of where patients receive care, we can gain insights into the mechanisms needed to fulfill the goals of a functional regionalized healthcare system.

Disclosures

The author has no financial or other relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

With the increasing percentage of our gross national product being allotted to healthcare and concerns about the care received by patients, the number of measures to assess the quality and efficiency of care delivered by healthcare professionals has increased. The paper by Mueller et al.¹ adds to our understanding of an important yet relatively understudied group of patients: those that require transfer from one inpatient facility to another. In general, these patients are sicker and exhibit poor outcomes, especially with time-sensitive management conditions, such as cerebrovascular accidents, or conditions where the transfer itself may cause harm to the patient, such as the case of an infant born prematurely. However, transferring patients with less time-dependent conditions may not be associated with such negative results.¹ The uniqueness of interhospital transfers is attributed to their ability to provide insights into the care practices of other actors within the healthcare system, namely, the transferring hospital and the larger healthcare system, and to describe how the care quality may change in hospitals during periods of stress, such as during overcrowding or high patient acuity.

As described by Mueller et al. the care and outcomes of patients transferred to a hospital may provide information regarding the key aspects of care at the receiving hospital; these aspects include the capability for triage of potentially high-acuity patients and the management of such patients during periods of crowding and organizational stress. These measures of efficiency have rarely been studied in relation to the care provided to patients and their ultimate outcomes. The most studied efficiency measure is hospital crowding, which has been shown in numerous studies to be associated with lower efficiency as measured by the length of stay, lower quality of care, and higher mortality.^2-3 This report by Mueller et al. is one of the first papers to highlight how other aspects of the care delivery system, including the triage practices and the response of a hospital system to stress, may influence care outcomes. The limitation of other studies in exploring the relationship between the measures of efficiency and quality of care, as noted by a systematic review of healthcare efficiency measures by Hussey et al.⁴ emphasizes the need to understand the drivers of low quality of care and to determine the specific times at which such care may be compromised by other factors, such as patient volumes.

Although interhospital transfers may offer certain insights into the efficiency of care delivered at the hospitals receiving these patients, they are generally rare and centered on a few quaternary hospitals within a region.³ In addition, the Mueller paper reveals that not all these transfers have high disease acuity, particularly for cardiac patients. Whether claims-based approaches to risk adjustment would sufficiently differentiate the reasons for the transfer/failure to transfer of patients is unclear and thus may be affected by the selection bias. With these issues, the outcome of transferred patients may be only of limited value when assessing the care quality of hospitals that generally receive transferred patients from other medical institutions within a given geographic area.⁵

Interhospital transfers may provide insights into the care of patients at the hospitals which transfer out such patients, focusing on the appropriateness of transfers, how these hospitals operate when such a sick patient arrives at that hospital, and the outcomes of patients with conditions that may require transfer. A few studies have explored the preventable transfer, particularly for trauma patients, where a preventable transfer was defined as a transfer that was was not admitted to the receiving hospital and did not receive any procedures or testing. Although not readily defined for numerous conditions, such a measure would provide insights into how hospitals decide whether a patient requires care at a higher-level hospital and assessing the processes needed to optimize this decision-making process, including where the patient ultimately is transferred. In a study of patients with acute myocardial infarction, 36.8% of cases that required transfer were not directed to hospitals with the best outcomes as measured by 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates within a given geographic region.⁶ Such decisions would contribute to the potential worse outcomes observed in patients requiring interhospital transfer.

Finally, transfers provide insights into the functioning of the larger healthcare system. The measures assessing the functioning of the healthcare system are rare. In theory, interhospital transfers meet the goals of a functioning regional healthcare system by matching the patients to facilities with the suitable capabilities to manage the patient’s given type of illness or injury. Such a system, however, requires collaboration between hospitals who otherwise compete for patients. The literature suggests that such collaboration is widely variable and dependent on patient factors, such as the types of conditions and their insurance status,⁷ and the costs required by hospitals to add the services needed to care for increasingly ill patients. In addition, the growth of so-called narrow insurance networks, which limit the number of hospitals an insurance company will include on their preferred network, may place barriers on the appropriate location of such transfers based on the quality of the receiving hospital.⁸

The paper by Mueller et al. adds to the literature the unique aspects of the care needed by the patients requiring interhospital transfer. Unlike most other measures of care quality and efficiency, interhospital transfers potentially offer knowledge about the quality of the larger healthcare system, assessing the appropriateness and ultimate outcomes not only of patients who are transferred but similarly sick patients who could have potentially benefited from a transfer and how the actors within the system may respond to periods of high patient load and stress. By understanding the drivers of the appropriateness of where patients receive care, we can gain insights into the mechanisms needed to fulfill the goals of a functional regionalized healthcare system.

Disclosures

The author has no financial or other relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

With the increasing percentage of our gross national product being allotted to healthcare and concerns about the care received by patients, the number of measures to assess the quality and efficiency of care delivered by healthcare professionals has increased. The paper by Mueller et al.¹ adds to our understanding of an important yet relatively understudied group of patients: those that require transfer from one inpatient facility to another. In general, these patients are sicker and exhibit poor outcomes, especially with time-sensitive management conditions, such as cerebrovascular accidents, or conditions where the transfer itself may cause harm to the patient, such as the case of an infant born prematurely. However, transferring patients with less time-dependent conditions may not be associated with such negative results.¹ The uniqueness of interhospital transfers is attributed to their ability to provide insights into the care practices of other actors within the healthcare system, namely, the transferring hospital and the larger healthcare system, and to describe how the care quality may change in hospitals during periods of stress, such as during overcrowding or high patient acuity.

As described by Mueller et al. the care and outcomes of patients transferred to a hospital may provide information regarding the key aspects of care at the receiving hospital; these aspects include the capability for triage of potentially high-acuity patients and the management of such patients during periods of crowding and organizational stress. These measures of efficiency have rarely been studied in relation to the care provided to patients and their ultimate outcomes. The most studied efficiency measure is hospital crowding, which has been shown in numerous studies to be associated with lower efficiency as measured by the length of stay, lower quality of care, and higher mortality.^2-3 This report by Mueller et al. is one of the first papers to highlight how other aspects of the care delivery system, including the triage practices and the response of a hospital system to stress, may influence care outcomes. The limitation of other studies in exploring the relationship between the measures of efficiency and quality of care, as noted by a systematic review of healthcare efficiency measures by Hussey et al.⁴ emphasizes the need to understand the drivers of low quality of care and to determine the specific times at which such care may be compromised by other factors, such as patient volumes.

Although interhospital transfers may offer certain insights into the efficiency of care delivered at the hospitals receiving these patients, they are generally rare and centered on a few quaternary hospitals within a region.³ In addition, the Mueller paper reveals that not all these transfers have high disease acuity, particularly for cardiac patients. Whether claims-based approaches to risk adjustment would sufficiently differentiate the reasons for the transfer/failure to transfer of patients is unclear and thus may be affected by the selection bias. With these issues, the outcome of transferred patients may be only of limited value when assessing the care quality of hospitals that generally receive transferred patients from other medical institutions within a given geographic area.⁵

Interhospital transfers may provide insights into the care of patients at the hospitals which transfer out such patients, focusing on the appropriateness of transfers, how these hospitals operate when such a sick patient arrives at that hospital, and the outcomes of patients with conditions that may require transfer. A few studies have explored the preventable transfer, particularly for trauma patients, where a preventable transfer was defined as a transfer that was was not admitted to the receiving hospital and did not receive any procedures or testing. Although not readily defined for numerous conditions, such a measure would provide insights into how hospitals decide whether a patient requires care at a higher-level hospital and assessing the processes needed to optimize this decision-making process, including where the patient ultimately is transferred. In a study of patients with acute myocardial infarction, 36.8% of cases that required transfer were not directed to hospitals with the best outcomes as measured by 30-day risk-adjusted mortality rates within a given geographic region.⁶ Such decisions would contribute to the potential worse outcomes observed in patients requiring interhospital transfer.

Finally, transfers provide insights into the functioning of the larger healthcare system. The measures assessing the functioning of the healthcare system are rare. In theory, interhospital transfers meet the goals of a functioning regional healthcare system by matching the patients to facilities with the suitable capabilities to manage the patient’s given type of illness or injury. Such a system, however, requires collaboration between hospitals who otherwise compete for patients. The literature suggests that such collaboration is widely variable and dependent on patient factors, such as the types of conditions and their insurance status,⁷ and the costs required by hospitals to add the services needed to care for increasingly ill patients. In addition, the growth of so-called narrow insurance networks, which limit the number of hospitals an insurance company will include on their preferred network, may place barriers on the appropriate location of such transfers based on the quality of the receiving hospital.⁸

The paper by Mueller et al. adds to the literature the unique aspects of the care needed by the patients requiring interhospital transfer. Unlike most other measures of care quality and efficiency, interhospital transfers potentially offer knowledge about the quality of the larger healthcare system, assessing the appropriateness and ultimate outcomes not only of patients who are transferred but similarly sick patients who could have potentially benefited from a transfer and how the actors within the system may respond to periods of high patient load and stress. By understanding the drivers of the appropriateness of where patients receive care, we can gain insights into the mechanisms needed to fulfill the goals of a functional regionalized healthcare system.

Disclosures

The author has no financial or other relevant conflicts of interest to disclose.

Medicine has a rich history of attending-led rounds, with some iteration of this ritual occurring as far back as the 1600s.¹ In the early 1900s, the concept of “bedside rounds” was popularized by William Osler, who widely espoused their importance as a clinical and educational tool. Despite our best intentions, however, rounds today may be little reminiscent of the rounds of Osler’s day. Recent investigations into the characteristics of rounds have specifically revealed a “shift in the format from the beside to conference rooms and hallways.”² Most of our practices for rounding in the modern era are built on tradition and belief rather than evidence. The ecosystem of modern hospital care is dramatically different than that of Osler’s day, and fundamental questions about the format, content, stakeholders, and processes of rounds remain. Perhaps the greatest and most needed change in rounding in recent years is the shift of rounds from a physician-centric activity to an activity that values the modern interprofessional hospital team. Ultimately, the very definition of “rounds” and the purpose they are meant to serve in the context of a dynamic and complicated hospital ecosystem has become increasingly complex and thus, difficult to assess and improve.

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sang et al.³ address this complexity by returning to basics and utilizing a novel approach to precisely measure the frequency and duration of a necessary (albeit insufficient) condition for interdisciplinary bedside rounding to occur: colocation of physician, nurse, and patient. Ultimately, their results provide a springboard to ask more complex and meaningful questions. Why, despite a recent culture shift prioritizing a return to bedside, is substantive physician and nurse colocation so persistently difficult to attain? How can we study outcomes of interdisciplinary bedside rounds if we cannot reliably facilitate their occurrence? What does “effective” rounding even mean? That is, what variables would be both meaningful and sensitive to changes in rounds?

After centuries of rounding, the medical community would be presumed to have perfected this art; however, we are instead left with more questions than answers. Prior research efforts have demonstrated the shifting of rounds away from the bedside, with bedside rounds occurring only 10%-40% of the time based on bias-prone survey data.^2,4 Interestingly, a study by Huang et al., designed specifically to increase implementation of interdisciplinary bedside rounds, showed a frequency of only 64%.⁵ These studies are focused primarily on parameters such as patient and nursing satisfaction and did not include other important outcomes such as length of stay, readmission rates, diagnostic quality, patient engagement, or mortality.^2,4,6

In Sang et al.,³ the authors utilized a real-time locator system, namely, radiofrequency identification, to precisely track the physical workflow of both attending hospitalists and bedside nurses and then subsequently used the data obtained to measure the frequency and duration of colocation at the patient bedside. The authors defined a physician “rounding event” as the physician’s presence in a single bed patient room for at least 10 seconds. The study revealed that colocation of physician and nurse (for at least 10 seconds) occurred in only 30% of all physician rounding events recorded. The duration of a physician rounding event was 5.68 minutes without nurse colocation and 9.56 minutes if a nurse was present. No difference in the frequency of physician-nurse overlap was observed between weekdays and weekends. Interestingly and not surprisingly, patient rooms located farther from the nursing station had a decreased likelihood of physician-nurse overlap.

A greater understanding of the medical community’s inability to reliably implement interdisciplinary bedside rounding may be found by examining the ecosystem of inpatient medicine. Physicians and nurses function in an environment with increasingly complex patients, more stringent (and non- evidence-based) documentation requirements, the physical decoupling of patients and their clinical information, and, as Sang et al.³ illuminate, complex geographical ward structures. As the rapidity with which patients are diagnosed and treated continues to escalate, physicians and nurses are also asked to attempt to squeeze an Oslerian-type rounding system into an ecosystem that is in overdrive. That the puzzle pieces do not fit should not be a surprise.

There is a risk that systems may implement interventions to “check the box” for interdisciplinary bedside rounding instead of seeking to change outcomes. How much time is time enough together at the bedside? Sang et al., among others, ponder whether a rounding duration of just under 10 minutes is enough.^3,6 However, Rothberg et al. demonstrated that increased duration of communication alone is not necessarily associated with increased patient satisfaction or nurse–physician agreement on plan of care,⁷ suggesting that colocation and communication are necessary but not sufficient for true interdisciplinary patient care. The discordance between communication and understanding can potentially be explained by the varying agendas of the members of the interdisciplinary team during the same interaction.⁸

Ultimately, the future of interdisciplinary bedside rounding, and rounding in general, remains uncertain. Potential areas for improvement and further study include patient regionalization,^3,5 tools to align agendas among stakeholders,⁸ integrating recommendations for interdisciplinary communication,⁹ and utilizing a common definition and taxonomy for study design.¹⁰ These interventions may improve future study designs and outcomes. However, these interventions are small tweaks in a complex ecosystem, and the return on these interventions may eventually reach an asymptote. Perhaps the concept of rounding as we know it is broken beyond repair, and a more radical approach is needed: either the creation of a completely innovative shared mental model of acute care that acknowledges the complex environment of inpatient medicine, or a complete restructuring of the ecosystem itself. Nonetheless, the findings of Sang et al.³ with respect to the ongoing difficulty of implementing interdisciplinary bedside rounding elucidate the need for innovation in study design and rounding implementation strategies; they also prompt us to ask—and answer—the complicated questions related to this integral component of our practice.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Medicine has a rich history of attending-led rounds, with some iteration of this ritual occurring as far back as the 1600s.¹ In the early 1900s, the concept of “bedside rounds” was popularized by William Osler, who widely espoused their importance as a clinical and educational tool. Despite our best intentions, however, rounds today may be little reminiscent of the rounds of Osler’s day. Recent investigations into the characteristics of rounds have specifically revealed a “shift in the format from the beside to conference rooms and hallways.”² Most of our practices for rounding in the modern era are built on tradition and belief rather than evidence. The ecosystem of modern hospital care is dramatically different than that of Osler’s day, and fundamental questions about the format, content, stakeholders, and processes of rounds remain. Perhaps the greatest and most needed change in rounding in recent years is the shift of rounds from a physician-centric activity to an activity that values the modern interprofessional hospital team. Ultimately, the very definition of “rounds” and the purpose they are meant to serve in the context of a dynamic and complicated hospital ecosystem has become increasingly complex and thus, difficult to assess and improve.

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sang et al.³ address this complexity by returning to basics and utilizing a novel approach to precisely measure the frequency and duration of a necessary (albeit insufficient) condition for interdisciplinary bedside rounding to occur: colocation of physician, nurse, and patient. Ultimately, their results provide a springboard to ask more complex and meaningful questions. Why, despite a recent culture shift prioritizing a return to bedside, is substantive physician and nurse colocation so persistently difficult to attain? How can we study outcomes of interdisciplinary bedside rounds if we cannot reliably facilitate their occurrence? What does “effective” rounding even mean? That is, what variables would be both meaningful and sensitive to changes in rounds?

After centuries of rounding, the medical community would be presumed to have perfected this art; however, we are instead left with more questions than answers. Prior research efforts have demonstrated the shifting of rounds away from the bedside, with bedside rounds occurring only 10%-40% of the time based on bias-prone survey data.^2,4 Interestingly, a study by Huang et al., designed specifically to increase implementation of interdisciplinary bedside rounds, showed a frequency of only 64%.⁵ These studies are focused primarily on parameters such as patient and nursing satisfaction and did not include other important outcomes such as length of stay, readmission rates, diagnostic quality, patient engagement, or mortality.^2,4,6

In Sang et al.,³ the authors utilized a real-time locator system, namely, radiofrequency identification, to precisely track the physical workflow of both attending hospitalists and bedside nurses and then subsequently used the data obtained to measure the frequency and duration of colocation at the patient bedside. The authors defined a physician “rounding event” as the physician’s presence in a single bed patient room for at least 10 seconds. The study revealed that colocation of physician and nurse (for at least 10 seconds) occurred in only 30% of all physician rounding events recorded. The duration of a physician rounding event was 5.68 minutes without nurse colocation and 9.56 minutes if a nurse was present. No difference in the frequency of physician-nurse overlap was observed between weekdays and weekends. Interestingly and not surprisingly, patient rooms located farther from the nursing station had a decreased likelihood of physician-nurse overlap.

A greater understanding of the medical community’s inability to reliably implement interdisciplinary bedside rounding may be found by examining the ecosystem of inpatient medicine. Physicians and nurses function in an environment with increasingly complex patients, more stringent (and non- evidence-based) documentation requirements, the physical decoupling of patients and their clinical information, and, as Sang et al.³ illuminate, complex geographical ward structures. As the rapidity with which patients are diagnosed and treated continues to escalate, physicians and nurses are also asked to attempt to squeeze an Oslerian-type rounding system into an ecosystem that is in overdrive. That the puzzle pieces do not fit should not be a surprise.

There is a risk that systems may implement interventions to “check the box” for interdisciplinary bedside rounding instead of seeking to change outcomes. How much time is time enough together at the bedside? Sang et al., among others, ponder whether a rounding duration of just under 10 minutes is enough.^3,6 However, Rothberg et al. demonstrated that increased duration of communication alone is not necessarily associated with increased patient satisfaction or nurse–physician agreement on plan of care,⁷ suggesting that colocation and communication are necessary but not sufficient for true interdisciplinary patient care. The discordance between communication and understanding can potentially be explained by the varying agendas of the members of the interdisciplinary team during the same interaction.⁸

Ultimately, the future of interdisciplinary bedside rounding, and rounding in general, remains uncertain. Potential areas for improvement and further study include patient regionalization,^3,5 tools to align agendas among stakeholders,⁸ integrating recommendations for interdisciplinary communication,⁹ and utilizing a common definition and taxonomy for study design.¹⁰ These interventions may improve future study designs and outcomes. However, these interventions are small tweaks in a complex ecosystem, and the return on these interventions may eventually reach an asymptote. Perhaps the concept of rounding as we know it is broken beyond repair, and a more radical approach is needed: either the creation of a completely innovative shared mental model of acute care that acknowledges the complex environment of inpatient medicine, or a complete restructuring of the ecosystem itself. Nonetheless, the findings of Sang et al.³ with respect to the ongoing difficulty of implementing interdisciplinary bedside rounding elucidate the need for innovation in study design and rounding implementation strategies; they also prompt us to ask—and answer—the complicated questions related to this integral component of our practice.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Medicine has a rich history of attending-led rounds, with some iteration of this ritual occurring as far back as the 1600s.¹ In the early 1900s, the concept of “bedside rounds” was popularized by William Osler, who widely espoused their importance as a clinical and educational tool. Despite our best intentions, however, rounds today may be little reminiscent of the rounds of Osler’s day. Recent investigations into the characteristics of rounds have specifically revealed a “shift in the format from the beside to conference rooms and hallways.”² Most of our practices for rounding in the modern era are built on tradition and belief rather than evidence. The ecosystem of modern hospital care is dramatically different than that of Osler’s day, and fundamental questions about the format, content, stakeholders, and processes of rounds remain. Perhaps the greatest and most needed change in rounding in recent years is the shift of rounds from a physician-centric activity to an activity that values the modern interprofessional hospital team. Ultimately, the very definition of “rounds” and the purpose they are meant to serve in the context of a dynamic and complicated hospital ecosystem has become increasingly complex and thus, difficult to assess and improve.

In this month’s Journal of Hospital Medicine, Sang et al.³ address this complexity by returning to basics and utilizing a novel approach to precisely measure the frequency and duration of a necessary (albeit insufficient) condition for interdisciplinary bedside rounding to occur: colocation of physician, nurse, and patient. Ultimately, their results provide a springboard to ask more complex and meaningful questions. Why, despite a recent culture shift prioritizing a return to bedside, is substantive physician and nurse colocation so persistently difficult to attain? How can we study outcomes of interdisciplinary bedside rounds if we cannot reliably facilitate their occurrence? What does “effective” rounding even mean? That is, what variables would be both meaningful and sensitive to changes in rounds?

After centuries of rounding, the medical community would be presumed to have perfected this art; however, we are instead left with more questions than answers. Prior research efforts have demonstrated the shifting of rounds away from the bedside, with bedside rounds occurring only 10%-40% of the time based on bias-prone survey data.^2,4 Interestingly, a study by Huang et al., designed specifically to increase implementation of interdisciplinary bedside rounds, showed a frequency of only 64%.⁵ These studies are focused primarily on parameters such as patient and nursing satisfaction and did not include other important outcomes such as length of stay, readmission rates, diagnostic quality, patient engagement, or mortality.^2,4,6

In Sang et al.,³ the authors utilized a real-time locator system, namely, radiofrequency identification, to precisely track the physical workflow of both attending hospitalists and bedside nurses and then subsequently used the data obtained to measure the frequency and duration of colocation at the patient bedside. The authors defined a physician “rounding event” as the physician’s presence in a single bed patient room for at least 10 seconds. The study revealed that colocation of physician and nurse (for at least 10 seconds) occurred in only 30% of all physician rounding events recorded. The duration of a physician rounding event was 5.68 minutes without nurse colocation and 9.56 minutes if a nurse was present. No difference in the frequency of physician-nurse overlap was observed between weekdays and weekends. Interestingly and not surprisingly, patient rooms located farther from the nursing station had a decreased likelihood of physician-nurse overlap.

A greater understanding of the medical community’s inability to reliably implement interdisciplinary bedside rounding may be found by examining the ecosystem of inpatient medicine. Physicians and nurses function in an environment with increasingly complex patients, more stringent (and non- evidence-based) documentation requirements, the physical decoupling of patients and their clinical information, and, as Sang et al.³ illuminate, complex geographical ward structures. As the rapidity with which patients are diagnosed and treated continues to escalate, physicians and nurses are also asked to attempt to squeeze an Oslerian-type rounding system into an ecosystem that is in overdrive. That the puzzle pieces do not fit should not be a surprise.

There is a risk that systems may implement interventions to “check the box” for interdisciplinary bedside rounding instead of seeking to change outcomes. How much time is time enough together at the bedside? Sang et al., among others, ponder whether a rounding duration of just under 10 minutes is enough.^3,6 However, Rothberg et al. demonstrated that increased duration of communication alone is not necessarily associated with increased patient satisfaction or nurse–physician agreement on plan of care,⁷ suggesting that colocation and communication are necessary but not sufficient for true interdisciplinary patient care. The discordance between communication and understanding can potentially be explained by the varying agendas of the members of the interdisciplinary team during the same interaction.⁸

Ultimately, the future of interdisciplinary bedside rounding, and rounding in general, remains uncertain. Potential areas for improvement and further study include patient regionalization,^3,5 tools to align agendas among stakeholders,⁸ integrating recommendations for interdisciplinary communication,⁹ and utilizing a common definition and taxonomy for study design.¹⁰ These interventions may improve future study designs and outcomes. However, these interventions are small tweaks in a complex ecosystem, and the return on these interventions may eventually reach an asymptote. Perhaps the concept of rounding as we know it is broken beyond repair, and a more radical approach is needed: either the creation of a completely innovative shared mental model of acute care that acknowledges the complex environment of inpatient medicine, or a complete restructuring of the ecosystem itself. Nonetheless, the findings of Sang et al.³ with respect to the ongoing difficulty of implementing interdisciplinary bedside rounding elucidate the need for innovation in study design and rounding implementation strategies; they also prompt us to ask—and answer—the complicated questions related to this integral component of our practice.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Polypharmacy, the practice of taking multiple medications to manage health conditions, is common for children. Many children today have a higher burden chronic illness and an increasing number of pharmaceuticals—often delivered in various doses throughout the day. Polypharmacy has been linked to a variety of pediatric and adult outcomes, including medication errors and readmission.^1-3 Consequently, the Society of Hospital Medicine recognizes polypharmacy as a risk factor for readmission for adult populations.⁴ These adverse outcomes are related to both the human elements of polypharmacy (eg, cognitive burden, adherence) and the pharmacologic elements, including drug–drug interactions. For many children, the safety implications of polypharmacy may be more consequential due to the reliance of multiple caregivers to administer medications, which requires additional coordination to ensure that medications are administered and not duplicated. Dual administration of the same medication by both parents is the most common reason for pediatric calls to Poison Control Centers.⁵ Yet, there is a paucity of research in this area, with most of the pediatric literature focusing on the outpatient setting and specific populations, including epilepsy and mental health.^6-8

How providers, patients, and families translate medication lists to counts of medications—and hence the burden of polypharmacy—is not clearly or consistently described. Often in studies of polypharmacy, researchers utilize medication claims data to count the number of medications a patient has filled from the pharmacy. However, in routine clinical practice, clinicians rarely have access to medication claims and thus rely on patient or family report, which may or may not match the list of medications in the patients’ medical records.

Therefore, linking polypharmacy research to the pragmatic complexities of clinical care requires greater clarity and consistent application of concepts. At hospital discharge, families receive a list of medications to take, including home medications to resume as well as newly prescribed medications. However, not all medications are equally essential to patients’ care regarding importance of administration (eg, hydrocortisone ointment versus an anticonvulsant medication). Patients, parents, and caregivers are ultimately responsible for determining which medications to prioritize and administer.

Although there is no standard numerical definition for how to identify polypharmacy, five medications is commonly considered the threshold for polypharmacy.⁹ A recent review of the pediatric polypharmacy literature suggested a lower threshold, with any two concurrent medications for at least a day.⁷ Yet, the best approach to “count” medications at hospital discharge is unclear. The simplest method is to tally the number of medications listed in the discharge summary. However, medications are sometimes listed twice due to different dosages administered at different times. Frequently, medications are prescribed on an as-needed basis; these medications could be administered routinely or very infrequently (eg, epinephrine for anaphylaxis). Over-the-counter medications are also sometimes included in discharge summaries and consideration should be given as to whether these medications count toward measures of polypharmacy. Over-the-counter medications would not be counted by a polypharmacy measure that relies on claims data if those medications are not paid by the insurer.

We sought consensus on how to count discharge medications through a series of informal interviews with hospitalists, nurses, and parents. We asked the seemingly simple question, “How many medications is this child on?” across a variety of scenarios (Figure). For panel A, all stakeholders agreed that this medication list includes two medications. All other scenarios elicited disagreement. For panel B, many people responded three medications, but others (often physicians) counted only clindamycin and therefore responded one medication.

Disclosures

Dr. Auger has nothing to disclose. Dr. Shah is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Dr. Davis has nothing to disclose. Dr. Brady reports grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, outside the submitted work.

Funding

This project is supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1K08HS204735-01A1).

Polypharmacy, the practice of taking multiple medications to manage health conditions, is common for children. Many children today have a higher burden chronic illness and an increasing number of pharmaceuticals—often delivered in various doses throughout the day. Polypharmacy has been linked to a variety of pediatric and adult outcomes, including medication errors and readmission.^1-3 Consequently, the Society of Hospital Medicine recognizes polypharmacy as a risk factor for readmission for adult populations.⁴ These adverse outcomes are related to both the human elements of polypharmacy (eg, cognitive burden, adherence) and the pharmacologic elements, including drug–drug interactions. For many children, the safety implications of polypharmacy may be more consequential due to the reliance of multiple caregivers to administer medications, which requires additional coordination to ensure that medications are administered and not duplicated. Dual administration of the same medication by both parents is the most common reason for pediatric calls to Poison Control Centers.⁵ Yet, there is a paucity of research in this area, with most of the pediatric literature focusing on the outpatient setting and specific populations, including epilepsy and mental health.^6-8

How providers, patients, and families translate medication lists to counts of medications—and hence the burden of polypharmacy—is not clearly or consistently described. Often in studies of polypharmacy, researchers utilize medication claims data to count the number of medications a patient has filled from the pharmacy. However, in routine clinical practice, clinicians rarely have access to medication claims and thus rely on patient or family report, which may or may not match the list of medications in the patients’ medical records.

Therefore, linking polypharmacy research to the pragmatic complexities of clinical care requires greater clarity and consistent application of concepts. At hospital discharge, families receive a list of medications to take, including home medications to resume as well as newly prescribed medications. However, not all medications are equally essential to patients’ care regarding importance of administration (eg, hydrocortisone ointment versus an anticonvulsant medication). Patients, parents, and caregivers are ultimately responsible for determining which medications to prioritize and administer.

Although there is no standard numerical definition for how to identify polypharmacy, five medications is commonly considered the threshold for polypharmacy.⁹ A recent review of the pediatric polypharmacy literature suggested a lower threshold, with any two concurrent medications for at least a day.⁷ Yet, the best approach to “count” medications at hospital discharge is unclear. The simplest method is to tally the number of medications listed in the discharge summary. However, medications are sometimes listed twice due to different dosages administered at different times. Frequently, medications are prescribed on an as-needed basis; these medications could be administered routinely or very infrequently (eg, epinephrine for anaphylaxis). Over-the-counter medications are also sometimes included in discharge summaries and consideration should be given as to whether these medications count toward measures of polypharmacy. Over-the-counter medications would not be counted by a polypharmacy measure that relies on claims data if those medications are not paid by the insurer.

We sought consensus on how to count discharge medications through a series of informal interviews with hospitalists, nurses, and parents. We asked the seemingly simple question, “How many medications is this child on?” across a variety of scenarios (Figure). For panel A, all stakeholders agreed that this medication list includes two medications. All other scenarios elicited disagreement. For panel B, many people responded three medications, but others (often physicians) counted only clindamycin and therefore responded one medication.

Disclosures

Dr. Auger has nothing to disclose. Dr. Shah is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Dr. Davis has nothing to disclose. Dr. Brady reports grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, outside the submitted work.

Funding

This project is supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1K08HS204735-01A1).

Polypharmacy, the practice of taking multiple medications to manage health conditions, is common for children. Many children today have a higher burden chronic illness and an increasing number of pharmaceuticals—often delivered in various doses throughout the day. Polypharmacy has been linked to a variety of pediatric and adult outcomes, including medication errors and readmission.^1-3 Consequently, the Society of Hospital Medicine recognizes polypharmacy as a risk factor for readmission for adult populations.⁴ These adverse outcomes are related to both the human elements of polypharmacy (eg, cognitive burden, adherence) and the pharmacologic elements, including drug–drug interactions. For many children, the safety implications of polypharmacy may be more consequential due to the reliance of multiple caregivers to administer medications, which requires additional coordination to ensure that medications are administered and not duplicated. Dual administration of the same medication by both parents is the most common reason for pediatric calls to Poison Control Centers.⁵ Yet, there is a paucity of research in this area, with most of the pediatric literature focusing on the outpatient setting and specific populations, including epilepsy and mental health.^6-8

How providers, patients, and families translate medication lists to counts of medications—and hence the burden of polypharmacy—is not clearly or consistently described. Often in studies of polypharmacy, researchers utilize medication claims data to count the number of medications a patient has filled from the pharmacy. However, in routine clinical practice, clinicians rarely have access to medication claims and thus rely on patient or family report, which may or may not match the list of medications in the patients’ medical records.

Therefore, linking polypharmacy research to the pragmatic complexities of clinical care requires greater clarity and consistent application of concepts. At hospital discharge, families receive a list of medications to take, including home medications to resume as well as newly prescribed medications. However, not all medications are equally essential to patients’ care regarding importance of administration (eg, hydrocortisone ointment versus an anticonvulsant medication). Patients, parents, and caregivers are ultimately responsible for determining which medications to prioritize and administer.

Although there is no standard numerical definition for how to identify polypharmacy, five medications is commonly considered the threshold for polypharmacy.⁹ A recent review of the pediatric polypharmacy literature suggested a lower threshold, with any two concurrent medications for at least a day.⁷ Yet, the best approach to “count” medications at hospital discharge is unclear. The simplest method is to tally the number of medications listed in the discharge summary. However, medications are sometimes listed twice due to different dosages administered at different times. Frequently, medications are prescribed on an as-needed basis; these medications could be administered routinely or very infrequently (eg, epinephrine for anaphylaxis). Over-the-counter medications are also sometimes included in discharge summaries and consideration should be given as to whether these medications count toward measures of polypharmacy. Over-the-counter medications would not be counted by a polypharmacy measure that relies on claims data if those medications are not paid by the insurer.

We sought consensus on how to count discharge medications through a series of informal interviews with hospitalists, nurses, and parents. We asked the seemingly simple question, “How many medications is this child on?” across a variety of scenarios (Figure). For panel A, all stakeholders agreed that this medication list includes two medications. All other scenarios elicited disagreement. For panel B, many people responded three medications, but others (often physicians) counted only clindamycin and therefore responded one medication.

Disclosures

Dr. Auger has nothing to disclose. Dr. Shah is the Editor-in-Chief of the Journal of Hospital Medicine. Dr. Davis has nothing to disclose. Dr. Brady reports grants from Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, outside the submitted work.

Funding

This project is supported by a grant from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (1K08HS204735-01A1).

Anticoagulation for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated not only with considerable benefits, including prevention of pulmonary embolus and thrombus extension, but also with potential significant risks, such as life-threatening bleeding.¹ Hospitalized patients may require anticoagulation to treat new VTE or for secondary prevention of prior events. Hospital admission is a high-risk time for anticoagulation control.² Additionally, anticoagulation has become an increasingly complex decision as the number of therapeutic agents on the market has significantly increased, coupled with medication interactions and dosing intricacies. Management is multifaceted and associated with wide variation in practice patterns.³ Thus, further evidence-based guidance for providers is necessary for the care of the hospitalized patient with VTE.

The following are 16 selected guideline recommendations most relevant to adult hospitalists.⁴ Recommendations were graded as “strong” if most individuals should follow the recommended course of action and “conditional” if different choices are appropriate for different patients.

Initial Anticoagulant Dosing, Monitoring, and Medication Interactions

(for all recommendations–evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional)

Recommendation 1. In obese patients receiving low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), determine the initial dose based on actual body weight rather than a fixed or “capped” maximum dose.

Recommendation 2. For obese patients or those with renal dysfunction receiving LMWH, avoid dosing based on serum antifactor Xa levels. Instead, adjust dosing based on product labeling, with appropriate dose reduction in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Recommendation 3. For patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy, avoid measuring the anticoagulation effect during management of bleeding as there is no evidence to support a beneficial effect, and it may result in a delay in treatment.

Recommendation 4. For patients requiring administration of inhibitors or inducers of P-glycoprotein or cytochrome P450 enzymes, use LMWH or vitamin K antagonists (VKA) rather than a DOAC.

Recommendation 5. When transitioning from a DOAC to a VKA, the medications should overlap until the international normalized ratio (INR) is therapeutic instead of bridging with a heparin agent.

Recommendations for Ongoing Outpatient Monitoring upon Discharge from the Hospital

Recommendation 6. Use point-of-care INR testing by patients at home, with self-adjustment of VKA dose (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 7. Patients should be referred for specialized anticoagulation management rather than to their primary care provider (PCP) (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendation 8. Supplementary education, in addition to basic education, should be made available to patients to help improve outcomes (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Hospitalists are often responsible for the coordination of care upon discharge from the hospital, including discharge teaching, subspecialty referrals, and determination of patient suitability for home monitoring and dose adjustment. The follow-up plan may depend on local systems and access. A PCP can manage anticoagulation if performed in a systematic and coordinated fashion.⁵

Recommendations for Patients on Anticoagulation Undergoing Procedures

Recommendation 9. For patients with a low or moderate risk of recurrent VTE on VKA therapy undergoing procedures, periprocedural bridging with heparin or LMWH should be avoided. This excludes patients at high risk for recurrent VTE, defined as those with recent VTE (<3 months); having a known thrombophilic abnormality such as antiphospholipid syndrome, protein C/S deficiency, or antithrombin deficiency; or high-risk patient populations by expert consensus and practice guidelines^4,6 (evidence quality: moderate certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 10. For patients on DOACs undergoing procedures, measurement of the anticoagulation effect of the DOAC should be avoided (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendations for Patients on Anticoagulation Suffering from Supratherapeutic Levels or Bleeding Complications

(for all recommendations–evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional)

Recommendation 11. If a patient on VKA therapy has an INR between 4.5 and 10 without clinically relevant bleeding, the use of vitamin K therapy can be avoided in favor of temporary cessation of VKA alone.

Recommendation 12. If a patient on VKA therapy has life-threatening bleeding, four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) should be used in addition to the cessation of VKA therapy and initiation of vitamin K therapy, over the use of fresh frozen plaza, because of the ease of administration and minimal risk of volume overload.

Recommendation 13. If a patient has life-threatening bleeding on a Xa inhibitor, the panel recommends discontinuation of the medication and the option to administer either PCC or recombinant coagulation factor Xa, as there have been no studies comparing these two strategies.

Recommendation 14. If life-threatening bleeding occurs in a patient on dabigatran, idarucizumab should be administered, if available.

Recommendation 15. In patients with bleeding while on heparin or LMWH, protamine should be administered.

Recommendation 16. Following an episode of life-threatening bleeding, anticoagulation should be resumed within 90 days, provided that the patient is at moderate to high risk for recurrent VTE, is not at high risk for recurrent bleeding, and is willing to continue anticoagulation.

Methods in Preparing Guidelines

The panel was funded by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), a nonprofit medical specialty society.⁴ The panel is multidisciplinary, including physicians and providers as well as patient representatives, and is supported by the McMaster University GRADE Center, which conducted new and updated systematic reviews of the evidence according to the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.” The panel members agreed on 25 recommendations and two good practice statements. The recommendations were made available to external review by stakeholders and addressed. Comments made by 10 individuals or organizations were subsequently incorporated.

Sources of Potential Conflict of Interest

Panel members, other than patient representatives, did not receive funding, and the majority of the panel had no conflicts of interest to report. Given the minimal influence of outside parties including pharmaceutical companies, and the wide diversity of opinions sought in the creation of the guidelines, concern for conflict of interest is low.

Generalizability

These guidelines assume that the decision to anticoagulate a patient, and which agent to use, has already been made and thus do not offer further guidance on this decision. These guidelines also do not address optimal choices for anticoagulation in specific patient populations, such as patients with cancer. They are limited in scope to exclude the treatment of specific thromboembolic disease processes such as subsegmental pulmonary emboli, superficial venous thrombus, or distal vein thrombosis. Unfortunately, challenging decisions made by hospitalists frequently fall into one of these categories. Coincident with these guidelines, ASH introduced comprehensive guidelines to support basic diagnostic decisions.⁷

More evidence is needed to better understand optimal monitoring practices for patients on anticoagulation therapy, including the ideal INR monitoring frequency for patients on VKA therapy. Additionally, there is a need to better understand the difference in clinical outcomes and resources utilization when care is provided by an anticoagulation specialist as compared with a PCP. Finally, while guidelines suggest that anticoagulation should be resumed within 90 days of a life-threatening bleed, there is a need to better understand the optimal timing of a restart, as well as the patient factors to be considered in this decision.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

There was no funding support in the creation of this manuscript.

Anticoagulation for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated not only with considerable benefits, including prevention of pulmonary embolus and thrombus extension, but also with potential significant risks, such as life-threatening bleeding.¹ Hospitalized patients may require anticoagulation to treat new VTE or for secondary prevention of prior events. Hospital admission is a high-risk time for anticoagulation control.² Additionally, anticoagulation has become an increasingly complex decision as the number of therapeutic agents on the market has significantly increased, coupled with medication interactions and dosing intricacies. Management is multifaceted and associated with wide variation in practice patterns.³ Thus, further evidence-based guidance for providers is necessary for the care of the hospitalized patient with VTE.

The following are 16 selected guideline recommendations most relevant to adult hospitalists.⁴ Recommendations were graded as “strong” if most individuals should follow the recommended course of action and “conditional” if different choices are appropriate for different patients.

Initial Anticoagulant Dosing, Monitoring, and Medication Interactions

(for all recommendations–evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional)

Recommendation 1. In obese patients receiving low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), determine the initial dose based on actual body weight rather than a fixed or “capped” maximum dose.

Recommendation 2. For obese patients or those with renal dysfunction receiving LMWH, avoid dosing based on serum antifactor Xa levels. Instead, adjust dosing based on product labeling, with appropriate dose reduction in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Recommendation 3. For patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy, avoid measuring the anticoagulation effect during management of bleeding as there is no evidence to support a beneficial effect, and it may result in a delay in treatment.

Recommendation 4. For patients requiring administration of inhibitors or inducers of P-glycoprotein or cytochrome P450 enzymes, use LMWH or vitamin K antagonists (VKA) rather than a DOAC.

Recommendation 5. When transitioning from a DOAC to a VKA, the medications should overlap until the international normalized ratio (INR) is therapeutic instead of bridging with a heparin agent.

Recommendations for Ongoing Outpatient Monitoring upon Discharge from the Hospital

Recommendation 6. Use point-of-care INR testing by patients at home, with self-adjustment of VKA dose (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 7. Patients should be referred for specialized anticoagulation management rather than to their primary care provider (PCP) (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendation 8. Supplementary education, in addition to basic education, should be made available to patients to help improve outcomes (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Hospitalists are often responsible for the coordination of care upon discharge from the hospital, including discharge teaching, subspecialty referrals, and determination of patient suitability for home monitoring and dose adjustment. The follow-up plan may depend on local systems and access. A PCP can manage anticoagulation if performed in a systematic and coordinated fashion.⁵

Recommendations for Patients on Anticoagulation Undergoing Procedures

Recommendation 9. For patients with a low or moderate risk of recurrent VTE on VKA therapy undergoing procedures, periprocedural bridging with heparin or LMWH should be avoided. This excludes patients at high risk for recurrent VTE, defined as those with recent VTE (<3 months); having a known thrombophilic abnormality such as antiphospholipid syndrome, protein C/S deficiency, or antithrombin deficiency; or high-risk patient populations by expert consensus and practice guidelines^4,6 (evidence quality: moderate certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 10. For patients on DOACs undergoing procedures, measurement of the anticoagulation effect of the DOAC should be avoided (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendations for Patients on Anticoagulation Suffering from Supratherapeutic Levels or Bleeding Complications

(for all recommendations–evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional)

Recommendation 11. If a patient on VKA therapy has an INR between 4.5 and 10 without clinically relevant bleeding, the use of vitamin K therapy can be avoided in favor of temporary cessation of VKA alone.

Recommendation 12. If a patient on VKA therapy has life-threatening bleeding, four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) should be used in addition to the cessation of VKA therapy and initiation of vitamin K therapy, over the use of fresh frozen plaza, because of the ease of administration and minimal risk of volume overload.

Recommendation 13. If a patient has life-threatening bleeding on a Xa inhibitor, the panel recommends discontinuation of the medication and the option to administer either PCC or recombinant coagulation factor Xa, as there have been no studies comparing these two strategies.

Recommendation 14. If life-threatening bleeding occurs in a patient on dabigatran, idarucizumab should be administered, if available.

Recommendation 15. In patients with bleeding while on heparin or LMWH, protamine should be administered.

Recommendation 16. Following an episode of life-threatening bleeding, anticoagulation should be resumed within 90 days, provided that the patient is at moderate to high risk for recurrent VTE, is not at high risk for recurrent bleeding, and is willing to continue anticoagulation.

Methods in Preparing Guidelines

The panel was funded by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), a nonprofit medical specialty society.⁴ The panel is multidisciplinary, including physicians and providers as well as patient representatives, and is supported by the McMaster University GRADE Center, which conducted new and updated systematic reviews of the evidence according to the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.” The panel members agreed on 25 recommendations and two good practice statements. The recommendations were made available to external review by stakeholders and addressed. Comments made by 10 individuals or organizations were subsequently incorporated.

Sources of Potential Conflict of Interest

Panel members, other than patient representatives, did not receive funding, and the majority of the panel had no conflicts of interest to report. Given the minimal influence of outside parties including pharmaceutical companies, and the wide diversity of opinions sought in the creation of the guidelines, concern for conflict of interest is low.

Generalizability

These guidelines assume that the decision to anticoagulate a patient, and which agent to use, has already been made and thus do not offer further guidance on this decision. These guidelines also do not address optimal choices for anticoagulation in specific patient populations, such as patients with cancer. They are limited in scope to exclude the treatment of specific thromboembolic disease processes such as subsegmental pulmonary emboli, superficial venous thrombus, or distal vein thrombosis. Unfortunately, challenging decisions made by hospitalists frequently fall into one of these categories. Coincident with these guidelines, ASH introduced comprehensive guidelines to support basic diagnostic decisions.⁷

More evidence is needed to better understand optimal monitoring practices for patients on anticoagulation therapy, including the ideal INR monitoring frequency for patients on VKA therapy. Additionally, there is a need to better understand the difference in clinical outcomes and resources utilization when care is provided by an anticoagulation specialist as compared with a PCP. Finally, while guidelines suggest that anticoagulation should be resumed within 90 days of a life-threatening bleed, there is a need to better understand the optimal timing of a restart, as well as the patient factors to be considered in this decision.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

There was no funding support in the creation of this manuscript.

Anticoagulation for patients with venous thromboembolism (VTE) is associated not only with considerable benefits, including prevention of pulmonary embolus and thrombus extension, but also with potential significant risks, such as life-threatening bleeding.¹ Hospitalized patients may require anticoagulation to treat new VTE or for secondary prevention of prior events. Hospital admission is a high-risk time for anticoagulation control.² Additionally, anticoagulation has become an increasingly complex decision as the number of therapeutic agents on the market has significantly increased, coupled with medication interactions and dosing intricacies. Management is multifaceted and associated with wide variation in practice patterns.³ Thus, further evidence-based guidance for providers is necessary for the care of the hospitalized patient with VTE.

The following are 16 selected guideline recommendations most relevant to adult hospitalists.⁴ Recommendations were graded as “strong” if most individuals should follow the recommended course of action and “conditional” if different choices are appropriate for different patients.

Initial Anticoagulant Dosing, Monitoring, and Medication Interactions

(for all recommendations–evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional)

Recommendation 1. In obese patients receiving low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), determine the initial dose based on actual body weight rather than a fixed or “capped” maximum dose.

Recommendation 2. For obese patients or those with renal dysfunction receiving LMWH, avoid dosing based on serum antifactor Xa levels. Instead, adjust dosing based on product labeling, with appropriate dose reduction in patients with chronic kidney disease.

Recommendation 3. For patients receiving direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) therapy, avoid measuring the anticoagulation effect during management of bleeding as there is no evidence to support a beneficial effect, and it may result in a delay in treatment.

Recommendation 4. For patients requiring administration of inhibitors or inducers of P-glycoprotein or cytochrome P450 enzymes, use LMWH or vitamin K antagonists (VKA) rather than a DOAC.

Recommendation 5. When transitioning from a DOAC to a VKA, the medications should overlap until the international normalized ratio (INR) is therapeutic instead of bridging with a heparin agent.

Recommendations for Ongoing Outpatient Monitoring upon Discharge from the Hospital

Recommendation 6. Use point-of-care INR testing by patients at home, with self-adjustment of VKA dose (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 7. Patients should be referred for specialized anticoagulation management rather than to their primary care provider (PCP) (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendation 8. Supplementary education, in addition to basic education, should be made available to patients to help improve outcomes (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Hospitalists are often responsible for the coordination of care upon discharge from the hospital, including discharge teaching, subspecialty referrals, and determination of patient suitability for home monitoring and dose adjustment. The follow-up plan may depend on local systems and access. A PCP can manage anticoagulation if performed in a systematic and coordinated fashion.⁵

Recommendations for Patients on Anticoagulation Undergoing Procedures

Recommendation 9. For patients with a low or moderate risk of recurrent VTE on VKA therapy undergoing procedures, periprocedural bridging with heparin or LMWH should be avoided. This excludes patients at high risk for recurrent VTE, defined as those with recent VTE (<3 months); having a known thrombophilic abnormality such as antiphospholipid syndrome, protein C/S deficiency, or antithrombin deficiency; or high-risk patient populations by expert consensus and practice guidelines^4,6 (evidence quality: moderate certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 10. For patients on DOACs undergoing procedures, measurement of the anticoagulation effect of the DOAC should be avoided (evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendations for Patients on Anticoagulation Suffering from Supratherapeutic Levels or Bleeding Complications

(for all recommendations–evidence quality: very low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional)

Recommendation 11. If a patient on VKA therapy has an INR between 4.5 and 10 without clinically relevant bleeding, the use of vitamin K therapy can be avoided in favor of temporary cessation of VKA alone.

Recommendation 12. If a patient on VKA therapy has life-threatening bleeding, four-factor prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) should be used in addition to the cessation of VKA therapy and initiation of vitamin K therapy, over the use of fresh frozen plaza, because of the ease of administration and minimal risk of volume overload.

Recommendation 13. If a patient has life-threatening bleeding on a Xa inhibitor, the panel recommends discontinuation of the medication and the option to administer either PCC or recombinant coagulation factor Xa, as there have been no studies comparing these two strategies.

Recommendation 14. If life-threatening bleeding occurs in a patient on dabigatran, idarucizumab should be administered, if available.

Recommendation 15. In patients with bleeding while on heparin or LMWH, protamine should be administered.

Recommendation 16. Following an episode of life-threatening bleeding, anticoagulation should be resumed within 90 days, provided that the patient is at moderate to high risk for recurrent VTE, is not at high risk for recurrent bleeding, and is willing to continue anticoagulation.

Methods in Preparing Guidelines

The panel was funded by the American Society of Hematology (ASH), a nonprofit medical specialty society.⁴ The panel is multidisciplinary, including physicians and providers as well as patient representatives, and is supported by the McMaster University GRADE Center, which conducted new and updated systematic reviews of the evidence according to the “Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.” The panel members agreed on 25 recommendations and two good practice statements. The recommendations were made available to external review by stakeholders and addressed. Comments made by 10 individuals or organizations were subsequently incorporated.

Sources of Potential Conflict of Interest

Panel members, other than patient representatives, did not receive funding, and the majority of the panel had no conflicts of interest to report. Given the minimal influence of outside parties including pharmaceutical companies, and the wide diversity of opinions sought in the creation of the guidelines, concern for conflict of interest is low.

Generalizability

These guidelines assume that the decision to anticoagulate a patient, and which agent to use, has already been made and thus do not offer further guidance on this decision. These guidelines also do not address optimal choices for anticoagulation in specific patient populations, such as patients with cancer. They are limited in scope to exclude the treatment of specific thromboembolic disease processes such as subsegmental pulmonary emboli, superficial venous thrombus, or distal vein thrombosis. Unfortunately, challenging decisions made by hospitalists frequently fall into one of these categories. Coincident with these guidelines, ASH introduced comprehensive guidelines to support basic diagnostic decisions.⁷

More evidence is needed to better understand optimal monitoring practices for patients on anticoagulation therapy, including the ideal INR monitoring frequency for patients on VKA therapy. Additionally, there is a need to better understand the difference in clinical outcomes and resources utilization when care is provided by an anticoagulation specialist as compared with a PCP. Finally, while guidelines suggest that anticoagulation should be resumed within 90 days of a life-threatening bleed, there is a need to better understand the optimal timing of a restart, as well as the patient factors to be considered in this decision.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Funding

There was no funding support in the creation of this manuscript.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs uncommonly in pediatrics, affecting 0.07-0.14 per 10,000 children.^1,2 Yet, in the last 20 years, the incidence of VTE in hospitalized children has increased dramatically to approximately 58 per 10,000 admissions.³ This increase may be attributed to improved survival of very ill children, better diagnostic imaging modalities, and heightened awareness by managing physicians.³ Randomized controlled trials are lacking in pediatric thrombosis, and clinical care is based on extrapolation of adult data and expert consensus guidelines.^4,5 In 2014, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) sought to develop comprehensive guidelines on thrombosis. The pediatric VTE treatment guideline is one of six published to date.

The following are five selected guideline recommendations thought most relevant to pediatric hospitalists. Three focus on the central venous access device (CVAD), since it is the most common risk factor for pediatric VTE.¹ Recommendations were graded as “strong” if most providers, patients, and policy makers agreed with the intervention and if it was supported by credible research. Conditional recommendations had less uniform agreement with an emphasis on individualized care and weighing patients’ values and preferences.⁶

Recommendation 1. It is recommended that pediatric patients receive anticoagulation, versus no anticoagulation, for symptomatic VTE (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

There is strong indirect data in adults that symptomatic VTE requires treatment, with limited direct evidence in children. As VTE occurs most commonly in ill, hospitalized children with the potential for VTE to be life threatening, the benefit was felt to justify the strong recommendation despite low-quality evidence.

The primary benefit of anticoagulation in children with symptomatic VTE is the prevention of progressive or recurrent thrombosis with high morbidity and the prevention of life-threatening VTE. The greatest potential harm from the use of anticoagulation, particularly in very ill children, is the risk for major bleeding.⁴Recommendation 2. Children with asymptomatic VTE can be managed with or without anticoagulation (evidence quality: poor; recommendation strength: conditional).
Recommendation 2. Children with asymptomatic VTE can be managed with or without anticoagulation (evidence quality: poor; recommendation strength: conditional).

The panel focused on the unique features of pediatric VTE related to the heterogeneity in both the site and pathophysiology of VTE in children, such as age, presence of a CVAD, and comorbidities. There is little certainty that treating asymptomatic VTE is beneficial in the same way that treating symptomatic VTE would be in preventing recurrent thrombosis and embolization.

Until better evidence is available to guide care, the primary benefit of this recommendation is individualization of care related to each patient’s risk-benefit profile and parental preferences.

Potential problems with using this recommendation include the cost of anticoagulant drugs and major bleeding if anticoagulation is used. Potential problems with not using anticoagulation would be progressive or recurrent thromboembolism. Close monitoring of children with VTE—regardless of whether anticoagulation is prescribed—is warranted.

Pediatric Patients with Symptomatic CVAD-Related Thrombosis

Recommendations three through five pertain to CVAD-associated thrombosis, so they are reviewed together.

Recommendation 3. No removal of a functioning CVAD is suggested if venous access is still required (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).Recommendation 4. It is recommended to remove a nonfunctioning or unneeded CVAD (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).Recommendation 5. It is suggested to delay CVAD removal until after initiation of anticoagulation (days), rather than immediate removal if the CVAD is nonfunctioning or no longer needed (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendation 4. It is recommended to remove a nonfunctioning or unneeded CVAD (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 5. It is suggested to delay CVAD removal until after initiation of anticoagulation (days), rather than immediate removal if the CVAD is nonfunctioning or no longer needed (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

CVAD is the most common precipitating factor for pediatric VTE, particularly in neonates and older children.¹ Based on limited direct and indirect observational studies, there is low evidence of benefit for CVAD removal, but high-quality indirect evidence of harm and high cost, which the panel felt justified the strong recommendation for removing an unneeded or nonfunctioning line. If ongoing care can be safely administered without central access, removing the thrombosis stimulus is recommended. The guideline suggests keeping a functioning CVAD in a patient who requires ongoing venous access and placing high value on avoiding new line insertion when access sites may be limited to avoid the potential thrombogenic effect of new line placement.

In the limited direct and indirect observational studies identified, the optimal timing of CVAD removal is uncertain. Given the potential risk of emboli leading to pulmonary embolism or stroke, prior publications have suggested delaying removal until after three to five days of anticoagulation, particularly in children with known or potential right-to-left shunts.⁴ The risk of infection and bleeding with anticoagulation prior to CVAD removal was considered small by the panel. This recommendation is primarily based on the panel’s anecdotal experience and first principles, which is a limitation.

Methods in Preparing Guideline. The panel included pediatric experts with clinical and research expertise in the guideline topic, including nine hematologists, one intensivist, one cardiologist, one hematology pharmacist, and one anticoagulation nurse practitioner. It also included two methodologists with evidence appraisal and guideline development expertise, as well as two patient representatives.

The panel brainstormed and prioritized questions to be addressed and selected outcomes of interest for each question. The McMaster University GRADE Centre vetted and retained researchers to conduct or update systematic evidence reviews and coordinate the guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.⁶ For each guideline question, the results of systematic reviews were summarized in GRADE Evidence-to-Decision tables. The evidence quality was categorized into four levels ranging from very low to high. For each recommendation developed, the panel agreed on the evidence quality, balance of benefits and harms of compared management options with consideration of resource use, and inferences regarding the potential associated values and preferences. The panel addressed 26 questions, which generated 30 recommendations.

Draft recommendations were made available online for review by stakeholders, including allied organizations, medical professionals, patients, and the public. Revisions were made to address pertinent submitted comments, but the recommendations were not changed. After approval by ASH, the guideline was subjected to peer review by Blood Advances.

Sources of Potential Conflict of Interest or Bias. The guideline was developed and funded by ASH. All participants’ conflicts of interest were managed according to ASH policies based on recommendations of the Institute of Medicine and the Guideline International Network. A majority of the guideline panel had no conflicts. During deliberations, panelists with direct financial interests were recused from making judgments about relevant recommendations. The McMaster University-affiliated researchers had no conflicts.Generalizability. While this guideline included 30 recommendations, the ones highlighted apply to the most commonly seen pediatric VTE cases in hospital medicine. ASH emphasized that these guidelines should not be construed as the standard of care, but as a guide to help clinicians make treatment decisions for children with VTE and to enable them to individualize care when needed. The greatest limitation of this guideline is the lack of strong direct supporting evidence in pediatric VTE management.

Generalizability. While this guideline included 30 recommendations, the ones highlighted apply to the most commonly seen pediatric VTE cases in hospital medicine. ASH emphasized that these guidelines should not be construed as the standard of care, but as a guide to help clinicians make treatment decisions for children with VTE and to enable them to individualize care when needed. The greatest limitation of this guideline is the lack of strong direct supporting evidence in pediatric VTE management.

Although there is increasing interest in pediatric VTE prevention and risk assessment,⁷ there is currently limited evidence on the best ways to mitigate VTE risk or anticoagulation-associated major bleeding in hospitalized children. The relatively low incidence of VTE in children makes large randomized controlled trials difficult, but several are ongoing. The Evaluation of the Duration of Therapy for Thrombosis in Children (Kids-DOTT) multicenter, randomized trial will inform care on the optimal duration of anticoagulation in children with a transient provoking factor,⁸ and several phase III studies are investigating the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in children (NCT02234843, NCT02464969, NCT01895777, NCT02234843). These and future trials will better inform therapy in pediatric VTE.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships or conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs uncommonly in pediatrics, affecting 0.07-0.14 per 10,000 children.^1,2 Yet, in the last 20 years, the incidence of VTE in hospitalized children has increased dramatically to approximately 58 per 10,000 admissions.³ This increase may be attributed to improved survival of very ill children, better diagnostic imaging modalities, and heightened awareness by managing physicians.³ Randomized controlled trials are lacking in pediatric thrombosis, and clinical care is based on extrapolation of adult data and expert consensus guidelines.^4,5 In 2014, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) sought to develop comprehensive guidelines on thrombosis. The pediatric VTE treatment guideline is one of six published to date.

The following are five selected guideline recommendations thought most relevant to pediatric hospitalists. Three focus on the central venous access device (CVAD), since it is the most common risk factor for pediatric VTE.¹ Recommendations were graded as “strong” if most providers, patients, and policy makers agreed with the intervention and if it was supported by credible research. Conditional recommendations had less uniform agreement with an emphasis on individualized care and weighing patients’ values and preferences.⁶

Recommendation 1. It is recommended that pediatric patients receive anticoagulation, versus no anticoagulation, for symptomatic VTE (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

There is strong indirect data in adults that symptomatic VTE requires treatment, with limited direct evidence in children. As VTE occurs most commonly in ill, hospitalized children with the potential for VTE to be life threatening, the benefit was felt to justify the strong recommendation despite low-quality evidence.

The primary benefit of anticoagulation in children with symptomatic VTE is the prevention of progressive or recurrent thrombosis with high morbidity and the prevention of life-threatening VTE. The greatest potential harm from the use of anticoagulation, particularly in very ill children, is the risk for major bleeding.⁴Recommendation 2. Children with asymptomatic VTE can be managed with or without anticoagulation (evidence quality: poor; recommendation strength: conditional).
Recommendation 2. Children with asymptomatic VTE can be managed with or without anticoagulation (evidence quality: poor; recommendation strength: conditional).

The panel focused on the unique features of pediatric VTE related to the heterogeneity in both the site and pathophysiology of VTE in children, such as age, presence of a CVAD, and comorbidities. There is little certainty that treating asymptomatic VTE is beneficial in the same way that treating symptomatic VTE would be in preventing recurrent thrombosis and embolization.

Until better evidence is available to guide care, the primary benefit of this recommendation is individualization of care related to each patient’s risk-benefit profile and parental preferences.

Potential problems with using this recommendation include the cost of anticoagulant drugs and major bleeding if anticoagulation is used. Potential problems with not using anticoagulation would be progressive or recurrent thromboembolism. Close monitoring of children with VTE—regardless of whether anticoagulation is prescribed—is warranted.

Pediatric Patients with Symptomatic CVAD-Related Thrombosis

Recommendations three through five pertain to CVAD-associated thrombosis, so they are reviewed together.

Recommendation 3. No removal of a functioning CVAD is suggested if venous access is still required (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).Recommendation 4. It is recommended to remove a nonfunctioning or unneeded CVAD (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).Recommendation 5. It is suggested to delay CVAD removal until after initiation of anticoagulation (days), rather than immediate removal if the CVAD is nonfunctioning or no longer needed (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendation 4. It is recommended to remove a nonfunctioning or unneeded CVAD (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 5. It is suggested to delay CVAD removal until after initiation of anticoagulation (days), rather than immediate removal if the CVAD is nonfunctioning or no longer needed (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

CVAD is the most common precipitating factor for pediatric VTE, particularly in neonates and older children.¹ Based on limited direct and indirect observational studies, there is low evidence of benefit for CVAD removal, but high-quality indirect evidence of harm and high cost, which the panel felt justified the strong recommendation for removing an unneeded or nonfunctioning line. If ongoing care can be safely administered without central access, removing the thrombosis stimulus is recommended. The guideline suggests keeping a functioning CVAD in a patient who requires ongoing venous access and placing high value on avoiding new line insertion when access sites may be limited to avoid the potential thrombogenic effect of new line placement.

In the limited direct and indirect observational studies identified, the optimal timing of CVAD removal is uncertain. Given the potential risk of emboli leading to pulmonary embolism or stroke, prior publications have suggested delaying removal until after three to five days of anticoagulation, particularly in children with known or potential right-to-left shunts.⁴ The risk of infection and bleeding with anticoagulation prior to CVAD removal was considered small by the panel. This recommendation is primarily based on the panel’s anecdotal experience and first principles, which is a limitation.

Methods in Preparing Guideline. The panel included pediatric experts with clinical and research expertise in the guideline topic, including nine hematologists, one intensivist, one cardiologist, one hematology pharmacist, and one anticoagulation nurse practitioner. It also included two methodologists with evidence appraisal and guideline development expertise, as well as two patient representatives.

The panel brainstormed and prioritized questions to be addressed and selected outcomes of interest for each question. The McMaster University GRADE Centre vetted and retained researchers to conduct or update systematic evidence reviews and coordinate the guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.⁶ For each guideline question, the results of systematic reviews were summarized in GRADE Evidence-to-Decision tables. The evidence quality was categorized into four levels ranging from very low to high. For each recommendation developed, the panel agreed on the evidence quality, balance of benefits and harms of compared management options with consideration of resource use, and inferences regarding the potential associated values and preferences. The panel addressed 26 questions, which generated 30 recommendations.

Draft recommendations were made available online for review by stakeholders, including allied organizations, medical professionals, patients, and the public. Revisions were made to address pertinent submitted comments, but the recommendations were not changed. After approval by ASH, the guideline was subjected to peer review by Blood Advances.

Sources of Potential Conflict of Interest or Bias. The guideline was developed and funded by ASH. All participants’ conflicts of interest were managed according to ASH policies based on recommendations of the Institute of Medicine and the Guideline International Network. A majority of the guideline panel had no conflicts. During deliberations, panelists with direct financial interests were recused from making judgments about relevant recommendations. The McMaster University-affiliated researchers had no conflicts.Generalizability. While this guideline included 30 recommendations, the ones highlighted apply to the most commonly seen pediatric VTE cases in hospital medicine. ASH emphasized that these guidelines should not be construed as the standard of care, but as a guide to help clinicians make treatment decisions for children with VTE and to enable them to individualize care when needed. The greatest limitation of this guideline is the lack of strong direct supporting evidence in pediatric VTE management.

Generalizability. While this guideline included 30 recommendations, the ones highlighted apply to the most commonly seen pediatric VTE cases in hospital medicine. ASH emphasized that these guidelines should not be construed as the standard of care, but as a guide to help clinicians make treatment decisions for children with VTE and to enable them to individualize care when needed. The greatest limitation of this guideline is the lack of strong direct supporting evidence in pediatric VTE management.

Although there is increasing interest in pediatric VTE prevention and risk assessment,⁷ there is currently limited evidence on the best ways to mitigate VTE risk or anticoagulation-associated major bleeding in hospitalized children. The relatively low incidence of VTE in children makes large randomized controlled trials difficult, but several are ongoing. The Evaluation of the Duration of Therapy for Thrombosis in Children (Kids-DOTT) multicenter, randomized trial will inform care on the optimal duration of anticoagulation in children with a transient provoking factor,⁸ and several phase III studies are investigating the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in children (NCT02234843, NCT02464969, NCT01895777, NCT02234843). These and future trials will better inform therapy in pediatric VTE.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships or conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs uncommonly in pediatrics, affecting 0.07-0.14 per 10,000 children.^1,2 Yet, in the last 20 years, the incidence of VTE in hospitalized children has increased dramatically to approximately 58 per 10,000 admissions.³ This increase may be attributed to improved survival of very ill children, better diagnostic imaging modalities, and heightened awareness by managing physicians.³ Randomized controlled trials are lacking in pediatric thrombosis, and clinical care is based on extrapolation of adult data and expert consensus guidelines.^4,5 In 2014, the American Society of Hematology (ASH) sought to develop comprehensive guidelines on thrombosis. The pediatric VTE treatment guideline is one of six published to date.

The following are five selected guideline recommendations thought most relevant to pediatric hospitalists. Three focus on the central venous access device (CVAD), since it is the most common risk factor for pediatric VTE.¹ Recommendations were graded as “strong” if most providers, patients, and policy makers agreed with the intervention and if it was supported by credible research. Conditional recommendations had less uniform agreement with an emphasis on individualized care and weighing patients’ values and preferences.⁶

Recommendation 1. It is recommended that pediatric patients receive anticoagulation, versus no anticoagulation, for symptomatic VTE (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

There is strong indirect data in adults that symptomatic VTE requires treatment, with limited direct evidence in children. As VTE occurs most commonly in ill, hospitalized children with the potential for VTE to be life threatening, the benefit was felt to justify the strong recommendation despite low-quality evidence.

The primary benefit of anticoagulation in children with symptomatic VTE is the prevention of progressive or recurrent thrombosis with high morbidity and the prevention of life-threatening VTE. The greatest potential harm from the use of anticoagulation, particularly in very ill children, is the risk for major bleeding.⁴Recommendation 2. Children with asymptomatic VTE can be managed with or without anticoagulation (evidence quality: poor; recommendation strength: conditional).
Recommendation 2. Children with asymptomatic VTE can be managed with or without anticoagulation (evidence quality: poor; recommendation strength: conditional).

The panel focused on the unique features of pediatric VTE related to the heterogeneity in both the site and pathophysiology of VTE in children, such as age, presence of a CVAD, and comorbidities. There is little certainty that treating asymptomatic VTE is beneficial in the same way that treating symptomatic VTE would be in preventing recurrent thrombosis and embolization.

Until better evidence is available to guide care, the primary benefit of this recommendation is individualization of care related to each patient’s risk-benefit profile and parental preferences.

Potential problems with using this recommendation include the cost of anticoagulant drugs and major bleeding if anticoagulation is used. Potential problems with not using anticoagulation would be progressive or recurrent thromboembolism. Close monitoring of children with VTE—regardless of whether anticoagulation is prescribed—is warranted.

Pediatric Patients with Symptomatic CVAD-Related Thrombosis

Recommendations three through five pertain to CVAD-associated thrombosis, so they are reviewed together.

Recommendation 3. No removal of a functioning CVAD is suggested if venous access is still required (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).Recommendation 4. It is recommended to remove a nonfunctioning or unneeded CVAD (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).Recommendation 5. It is suggested to delay CVAD removal until after initiation of anticoagulation (days), rather than immediate removal if the CVAD is nonfunctioning or no longer needed (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

Recommendation 4. It is recommended to remove a nonfunctioning or unneeded CVAD (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: strong).

Recommendation 5. It is suggested to delay CVAD removal until after initiation of anticoagulation (days), rather than immediate removal if the CVAD is nonfunctioning or no longer needed (evidence quality: low certainty; recommendation strength: conditional).

CVAD is the most common precipitating factor for pediatric VTE, particularly in neonates and older children.¹ Based on limited direct and indirect observational studies, there is low evidence of benefit for CVAD removal, but high-quality indirect evidence of harm and high cost, which the panel felt justified the strong recommendation for removing an unneeded or nonfunctioning line. If ongoing care can be safely administered without central access, removing the thrombosis stimulus is recommended. The guideline suggests keeping a functioning CVAD in a patient who requires ongoing venous access and placing high value on avoiding new line insertion when access sites may be limited to avoid the potential thrombogenic effect of new line placement.

In the limited direct and indirect observational studies identified, the optimal timing of CVAD removal is uncertain. Given the potential risk of emboli leading to pulmonary embolism or stroke, prior publications have suggested delaying removal until after three to five days of anticoagulation, particularly in children with known or potential right-to-left shunts.⁴ The risk of infection and bleeding with anticoagulation prior to CVAD removal was considered small by the panel. This recommendation is primarily based on the panel’s anecdotal experience and first principles, which is a limitation.

Methods in Preparing Guideline. The panel included pediatric experts with clinical and research expertise in the guideline topic, including nine hematologists, one intensivist, one cardiologist, one hematology pharmacist, and one anticoagulation nurse practitioner. It also included two methodologists with evidence appraisal and guideline development expertise, as well as two patient representatives.

The panel brainstormed and prioritized questions to be addressed and selected outcomes of interest for each question. The McMaster University GRADE Centre vetted and retained researchers to conduct or update systematic evidence reviews and coordinate the guideline development using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach.⁶ For each guideline question, the results of systematic reviews were summarized in GRADE Evidence-to-Decision tables. The evidence quality was categorized into four levels ranging from very low to high. For each recommendation developed, the panel agreed on the evidence quality, balance of benefits and harms of compared management options with consideration of resource use, and inferences regarding the potential associated values and preferences. The panel addressed 26 questions, which generated 30 recommendations.

Draft recommendations were made available online for review by stakeholders, including allied organizations, medical professionals, patients, and the public. Revisions were made to address pertinent submitted comments, but the recommendations were not changed. After approval by ASH, the guideline was subjected to peer review by Blood Advances.

Sources of Potential Conflict of Interest or Bias. The guideline was developed and funded by ASH. All participants’ conflicts of interest were managed according to ASH policies based on recommendations of the Institute of Medicine and the Guideline International Network. A majority of the guideline panel had no conflicts. During deliberations, panelists with direct financial interests were recused from making judgments about relevant recommendations. The McMaster University-affiliated researchers had no conflicts.Generalizability. While this guideline included 30 recommendations, the ones highlighted apply to the most commonly seen pediatric VTE cases in hospital medicine. ASH emphasized that these guidelines should not be construed as the standard of care, but as a guide to help clinicians make treatment decisions for children with VTE and to enable them to individualize care when needed. The greatest limitation of this guideline is the lack of strong direct supporting evidence in pediatric VTE management.

Generalizability. While this guideline included 30 recommendations, the ones highlighted apply to the most commonly seen pediatric VTE cases in hospital medicine. ASH emphasized that these guidelines should not be construed as the standard of care, but as a guide to help clinicians make treatment decisions for children with VTE and to enable them to individualize care when needed. The greatest limitation of this guideline is the lack of strong direct supporting evidence in pediatric VTE management.

Although there is increasing interest in pediatric VTE prevention and risk assessment,⁷ there is currently limited evidence on the best ways to mitigate VTE risk or anticoagulation-associated major bleeding in hospitalized children. The relatively low incidence of VTE in children makes large randomized controlled trials difficult, but several are ongoing. The Evaluation of the Duration of Therapy for Thrombosis in Children (Kids-DOTT) multicenter, randomized trial will inform care on the optimal duration of anticoagulation in children with a transient provoking factor,⁸ and several phase III studies are investigating the safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants in children (NCT02234843, NCT02464969, NCT01895777, NCT02234843). These and future trials will better inform therapy in pediatric VTE.

Disclosures

The authors have no financial relationships or conflicts of interest relevant to this article to disclose.

Funding

No funding was secured for this study.

“I think healthcare is more about love than most other things”
—Don Berwick

Dr. Berwick speaks of the relationship between the doctor and the patient and family. I believe this relationship is sacred. My job as CEO of Blue Cross North Carolina is hard. But it was so much harder on a recent weekend to give a new diagnosis of a certainly fatal disease of a less than 1-year old child to her parents and discuss palliative care options. I cried and they cried. Being a leader, particularly in healthcare, requires us to maintain sight of what is important and return to those things often as we lead.

Growing up, my parents stressed two things: service and education. I decided early on that I wanted to improve our health care system. I have had a sometimes-winding path to this goal - including work as a consultant, medical school and residency, an RWJ Clinical Scholar, clinical work as a pediatric hospitalist and two tours through government as a White House Fellow, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Administrator and leader of the CMS Innovation Center. With each step I have used five criteria that have allowed me to consider decisions while staying true to myself and my mission.

First, Family. My wife and I have four children, age 10 and under. I put them first as I make decisions.

Second, Impact. Better quality, lower costs, and exceptional experience for populations of people. The triple aim, as we better know it.

Third, People. In the beginning, I took jobs to work with specific mentors. Now, I look carefully at the people and culture where I serve to assess fit and how I could uniquely add value.

Fourth, Learning. How much will I learn every day? When I interviewed for my current job, I told them that they could hire an insurance executive who would be better on day one than me, but if they wanted someone who would improve every day and try to make a model of health transformation and a model health plan for the nation, then they should choose me.

Fifth, Joy in Work. Self-explanatory.

We also have a family mission statement, which was my wife’s good idea. We wrote it together right after we were married. It is too personal to share in detail, but it talks about family, public service, commitment to community, life balance, faith, etc. It is short but to the point and has guided us well.

At some point, you will have someone more senior than you who says you must do A before B and then C. My advice: ignore them. Choose your own path. During my journey, I was encouraged to go down a traditional academic path. I did not do it. Yet, somehow, I was elected to the National Academy of Medicine before I turned 40. It was poignant because it was almost the only accomplishment that my father (a PhD scientist), who passed away before I was elected, would have understood.

So please, decide on your criteria and mission for career and life. Write them down, share them if you wish. Then follow them! Passionately! When things are going well, review them. Are you still aligned with what is important to you? When you are at a crossroads to make a decision, review them again. They should help guide your choice.

I often get asked “what keeps me up at night?” Honestly, nothing as I fall asleep in 10 seconds or less. But if something did, it is the fact that I am always worried that someone is falling through the cracks and getting suboptimal care. We must continue to strive to build a more highly reliable health system that delivers better quality, lower costs, and exceptional experience to all people. We cannot do that without great leaders. So, choose your own path, use your mission as a guide and lead focused on a better health system for all!

Disclosures

Dr. Conway has nothing to disclose.

“I think healthcare is more about love than most other things”
—Don Berwick

Dr. Berwick speaks of the relationship between the doctor and the patient and family. I believe this relationship is sacred. My job as CEO of Blue Cross North Carolina is hard. But it was so much harder on a recent weekend to give a new diagnosis of a certainly fatal disease of a less than 1-year old child to her parents and discuss palliative care options. I cried and they cried. Being a leader, particularly in healthcare, requires us to maintain sight of what is important and return to those things often as we lead.

Growing up, my parents stressed two things: service and education. I decided early on that I wanted to improve our health care system. I have had a sometimes-winding path to this goal - including work as a consultant, medical school and residency, an RWJ Clinical Scholar, clinical work as a pediatric hospitalist and two tours through government as a White House Fellow, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Administrator and leader of the CMS Innovation Center. With each step I have used five criteria that have allowed me to consider decisions while staying true to myself and my mission.

First, Family. My wife and I have four children, age 10 and under. I put them first as I make decisions.

Second, Impact. Better quality, lower costs, and exceptional experience for populations of people. The triple aim, as we better know it.

Third, People. In the beginning, I took jobs to work with specific mentors. Now, I look carefully at the people and culture where I serve to assess fit and how I could uniquely add value.

Fourth, Learning. How much will I learn every day? When I interviewed for my current job, I told them that they could hire an insurance executive who would be better on day one than me, but if they wanted someone who would improve every day and try to make a model of health transformation and a model health plan for the nation, then they should choose me.

Fifth, Joy in Work. Self-explanatory.

We also have a family mission statement, which was my wife’s good idea. We wrote it together right after we were married. It is too personal to share in detail, but it talks about family, public service, commitment to community, life balance, faith, etc. It is short but to the point and has guided us well.

At some point, you will have someone more senior than you who says you must do A before B and then C. My advice: ignore them. Choose your own path. During my journey, I was encouraged to go down a traditional academic path. I did not do it. Yet, somehow, I was elected to the National Academy of Medicine before I turned 40. It was poignant because it was almost the only accomplishment that my father (a PhD scientist), who passed away before I was elected, would have understood.

So please, decide on your criteria and mission for career and life. Write them down, share them if you wish. Then follow them! Passionately! When things are going well, review them. Are you still aligned with what is important to you? When you are at a crossroads to make a decision, review them again. They should help guide your choice.

I often get asked “what keeps me up at night?” Honestly, nothing as I fall asleep in 10 seconds or less. But if something did, it is the fact that I am always worried that someone is falling through the cracks and getting suboptimal care. We must continue to strive to build a more highly reliable health system that delivers better quality, lower costs, and exceptional experience to all people. We cannot do that without great leaders. So, choose your own path, use your mission as a guide and lead focused on a better health system for all!

Disclosures

Dr. Conway has nothing to disclose.

“I think healthcare is more about love than most other things”
—Don Berwick

Dr. Berwick speaks of the relationship between the doctor and the patient and family. I believe this relationship is sacred. My job as CEO of Blue Cross North Carolina is hard. But it was so much harder on a recent weekend to give a new diagnosis of a certainly fatal disease of a less than 1-year old child to her parents and discuss palliative care options. I cried and they cried. Being a leader, particularly in healthcare, requires us to maintain sight of what is important and return to those things often as we lead.

Growing up, my parents stressed two things: service and education. I decided early on that I wanted to improve our health care system. I have had a sometimes-winding path to this goal - including work as a consultant, medical school and residency, an RWJ Clinical Scholar, clinical work as a pediatric hospitalist and two tours through government as a White House Fellow, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) as Chief Medical Officer, Deputy Administrator and leader of the CMS Innovation Center. With each step I have used five criteria that have allowed me to consider decisions while staying true to myself and my mission.

First, Family. My wife and I have four children, age 10 and under. I put them first as I make decisions.

Second, Impact. Better quality, lower costs, and exceptional experience for populations of people. The triple aim, as we better know it.

Third, People. In the beginning, I took jobs to work with specific mentors. Now, I look carefully at the people and culture where I serve to assess fit and how I could uniquely add value.

Fourth, Learning. How much will I learn every day? When I interviewed for my current job, I told them that they could hire an insurance executive who would be better on day one than me, but if they wanted someone who would improve every day and try to make a model of health transformation and a model health plan for the nation, then they should choose me.

Fifth, Joy in Work. Self-explanatory.

We also have a family mission statement, which was my wife’s good idea. We wrote it together right after we were married. It is too personal to share in detail, but it talks about family, public service, commitment to community, life balance, faith, etc. It is short but to the point and has guided us well.

At some point, you will have someone more senior than you who says you must do A before B and then C. My advice: ignore them. Choose your own path. During my journey, I was encouraged to go down a traditional academic path. I did not do it. Yet, somehow, I was elected to the National Academy of Medicine before I turned 40. It was poignant because it was almost the only accomplishment that my father (a PhD scientist), who passed away before I was elected, would have understood.

So please, decide on your criteria and mission for career and life. Write them down, share them if you wish. Then follow them! Passionately! When things are going well, review them. Are you still aligned with what is important to you? When you are at a crossroads to make a decision, review them again. They should help guide your choice.

I often get asked “what keeps me up at night?” Honestly, nothing as I fall asleep in 10 seconds or less. But if something did, it is the fact that I am always worried that someone is falling through the cracks and getting suboptimal care. We must continue to strive to build a more highly reliable health system that delivers better quality, lower costs, and exceptional experience to all people. We cannot do that without great leaders. So, choose your own path, use your mission as a guide and lead focused on a better health system for all!

Disclosures

Dr. Conway has nothing to disclose.