Key result
Heart failure order sets show no significant association with lower 30-day repeat hospitalization or death.
Why the study?
Quality improvement initiatives improve health care delivery but can be resource intensive and disrupt care; an embedded heart failure order set within a computerized physician order-entry system may mitigate these concerns.
Does the use of a computerized heart failure order set improve clinical outcomes and reduce length of stay in patients hospitalized for heart failure?
Cohort (n=8,969)
Yes
Does the use of a computerized heart failure order set improve clinical outcomes and reduce length of stay in patients hospitalized for heart failure?
Effect estimate: HR 0.79 (95% CI 0.60-1.05)
Absolute Event Rate: 14.5% vs 17.7%
p-value: p=0.115
Implementation of a computerized heart failure order set significantly reduces hospital length of stay and increases guideline-directed care processes like LVEF testing and clinic referral.
Observed trend does not support changing practice; leaves open randomized confirmation of order set benefits on outcomes or stay.
BackgroundQuality improvement initiatives improve health care delivery but may be resource intensive and disrupt clinical care. An embedded heart failure order set (HFOS) within a computerized physician order-entry system may mitigate these concerns.MethodsAn HFOS, based on proven interventions, was implemented within an existing computerized physician order-entry system in all adult acute-care hospitals in a single Canadian metropolitan city and interrogated between January 1, 2013 and December 31, 2015. The composite of repeat hospitalization or death within 30 days of hospital discharge and hospital length of stay were reported.ResultsIn total, 8969 patients were included with mean age 75.6 ± 13.5 years; 4673 (52.1%) were male. The HFOS was used in 731 (8.2%) patients. After analysis of 724 pairs of propensity-score matched cohorts, patients with HFOS use experienced a lower median length of stay (8.6 vs 9.4 days, P = 0.016) and a trend toward lower composite repeat hospitalization or death (14.5% vs 17.7%, P = 0.115, hazard ratio 0.79 (0.60–1.05). Patients with HFOS use were more likely to undergo a test for left ventricular ejection fraction (88.6% vs 76.7%, P < 0.001, and to be referred to a heart failure clinic (48.5% vs 6.3%), with similar rates of discharge prescription of beta-blockers (88.7% vs 86.3) and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (87.4% vs 89.0%).ConclusionsUse of a designated HFOS within a computerized physician order-entry system is associated with shorter hospital length of stay without increase in deaths or readmissions. These findings should be confirmed in a prospective controlled trial.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miller et al. (2020) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=8,969). Heart failure order set (HFOS) vs. No HFOS use was evaluated on Composite of repeat hospitalization or death within 30 days of hospital discharge (HR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60-1.05, p=0.115). Use of a designated heart failure order set was associated with a trend toward lower 30-day repeat hospitalization or death compared to no use (14.5% vs 17.7%; HR 0.79; 95% CI 0.60-1.05; P=0.115).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: