RN

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA)—along with systems across the world—has spent the past 2 years continuously adapting to meet the emerging needs of persons infected with COVID-19. With the development of effective vaccines and global efforts to mitigate transmission, attention has now shifted to long COVID care as the need for further outpatient health care becomes increasingly apparent.^1,2

Background

Multiple terms describe the lingering, multisystem sequelae of COVID-19 that last longer than 4 weeks: long COVID, postacute COVID-19 syndrome, post-COVID condition, postacute sequalae of COVID-19, and COVID long hauler.^1,3 Common symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, sleep disorders, brain fog or cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, pain, and changes in taste or smell that impact a person’s functioning.^4,5 The multisystem nature of the postacute course of COVID-19 necessitates an interdisciplinary approach to devise comprehensive and individualized care plans.^6-9 Research is needed to better understand this postacute state (eg, prevalence, underlying effects, characteristics of those who experience long COVID) to establish and evaluate cost-effective treatment approaches.

Many patients who are experiencing symptoms beyond the acute course of COVID-19 have been referred to general outpatient clinics or home health, which may lack the capacity and knowledge of this novel disease to effectively manage complex long COVID cases.^2,3 To address this growing need, clinicians and leadership across a variety of disciplines and settings in the VHA created a community of practice (CoP) to create a mechanism for cross-facility communication, identify gaps in long COVID care and research, and cocreate knowledge on best practices for care delivery.

In this spirit, we are embracing a learning health system (LHS) approach that uses rapid-cycle methods to integrate data and real-world experience to iteratively evaluate and adapt models of long COVID care.¹⁰ Our clinically identified and data-driven objective is to provide high value health care to patients with long COVID sequalae by creating a framework to learn about this novel condition and develop innovative care models. This article provides an overview of our emerging LHS approach to the study of long COVID care that is fostering innovation and adaptability within the VHA. We describe 3 aspects of our engagement approach central to LHS: the ongoing development of a long COVID CoP dedicated to iteratively informing the bidirectional cycle of data from practice to research, results of a broad environmental scan of VHA long COVID care, and results of a survey administered to CoP members to inform ongoing needs of the community and identify early successful outcomes from participation.

Learning Health System Approach

The VHA is one of the largest integrated health care systems in the United States serving more than 9 million veterans.¹¹ Since 2017, the VHA has articulated a vision to become an LHS that informs and improves patient-centered care through practice-based and data-driven research (eAppendix).¹² During the early COVID-19 pandemic, an LHS approach in the VHA was critical to rapidly establishing a data infrastructure for disease surveillance, coordinating data-driven solutions, leveraging use of technology, collaborating across the globe to identify best practices, and implementing systematic responses (eg, policies, workforce adjustments).

Our long COVID CoP was developed as clinical observations and ongoing conversations with stakeholders (eg, veterans, health care practitioners [HCPs], leadership) identified a need to effectively identify and treat the growing number of veterans with long COVID. This clinical issue is compounded by the limited but emerging evidence on the clinical presentation of prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, treatment, and subsequent care pathways. The VHA’s efforts and lessons learned within the lens of an LHS are applicable to other systems confronting the complex identification and management of patients with persistent and encumbering long COVID symptoms. The VHA is building upon the LHS approach to proactively prepare for and address future clinical or public health challenges that require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient/family centeredness.¹¹

Community of Practice

As of January 25, 2022, our workgroup consisted of 128 VHA employees representing 29 VHA medical centers. Members of the multidisciplinary workgroup have diverse backgrounds with HCPs from primary care (eg, physicians, nurse practitioners), rehabilitation (eg, physical therapists), specialty care (eg, pulmonologists, physiatrists), mental health (eg, psychologists), and complementary and integrated health/Whole Health services (eg, practitoners of services such as yoga, tai chi, mindfulness, acupuncture). Members also include clinical, operations, and research leadership at local, regional, and national VHA levels. Our first objective as a large, diverse group was to establish shared goals, which included: (1) determining efficient communication pathways; (2) identifying gaps in care or research; and (3) cocreating knowledge to provide solutions to identified gaps.

Communication Mechanisms

Our first goal was to create an efficient mechanism for cross-facility communication. The initial CoP was formed in April 2021 and the first virtual meeting focused on reaching a consensus regarding the best way to communicate and proceed. We agreed to convene weekly at a consistent time, created a standard agenda template, and elected a lead facilitator of meeting proceedings. In addition, a member of the CoP recorded and took extensive meeting notes, which were later distributed to the entire CoP to accommodate varying schedules and ability to attend live meetings. Approximately 20 to 30 participants attend the meetings in real-time.

To consolidate working documents, information, and resources in one location, we created a platform to communicate via a Microsoft Teams channel. All CoP members are given access to the folders and allowed to add to the growing library of resources. Resources include clinical assessment and note templates for electronic documentation of care, site-specific process maps, relevant literature on screening and interventions identified by practice members, and meeting notes along with the recordings. A chat feature alerts CoP members to questions posed by other members. Any resources or information shared on the chat discussion are curated by CoP leaders to disseminate to all members. Importantly, this platform allowed us to communicate efficiently within the VHA organization by creating a centralized space for documents and the ability to correspond with all or select members of the CoP. Additional VHA employees can easily be referred and request access.

To increase awareness of the CoP, expand reach, and diversify perspectives, every participant was encouraged to invite colleagues and stakeholders with interest or experience in long COVID care to join. While patients are not included in this CoP, we are working closely with the VHA user experience workgroup (many members overlap) that is gathering patient and caregiver perspectives on their COVID-19 experience and long COVID care. Concurrently, CoP members and leadership facilitate communication and set up formal collaborations with other non-VHA health care systems to create an intersystem network of collaboration for long COVID care. This approach further enhances the speed at which we can work together to share lessons learned and stay up-to-date on emerging evidence surrounding long COVID care.

Identifying Gaps in Care and Research

Our second goal was to identify gaps in care or knowledge to inform future research and quality improvement initiatives, while also creating a foundation to cocreate knowledge about safe, effective care management of the novel long COVID sequelae. To translate knowledge, we must first identify and understand the gaps between the current, best available evidence and current care practices or policies impacting that delivery.¹³ As such, the structured meeting agenda and facilitated meeting discussions focused on understanding current clinical decision making and the evidence base. We shared VHA evidence synthesis reports and living rapid reviews on complications following COVID-19 illness (ie, major organ damage and posthospitalization health care use) that provided an objective evidence base on common long COVID complications.^14,15

Since long COVID is a novel condition, we drew from literature in similar patient populations and translated that information in the context of our current knowledge of this unique syndrome. For example, we discussed the predominant and persistent symptom of fatigue post-COVID.⁵ In particular, the CoP discussed challenges in identifying and treating post-COVID fatigue, which is often a vague symptom with multiple or interacting etiologies that require a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. As such, we reviewed, adapted, and translated identification and treatment strategies from the literature on chronic fatigue syndrome to patients with post-COVID syndrome.^16,17 We continue to work collaboratively and engage the appropriate stakeholders to provide input on the gaps to prioritize targeting.

Cocreate Knowledge

Our third goal was to cocreate knowledge regarding the care of patients with long COVID. To accomplish this, our structured meetings and communication pathways invited members to share experiences on the who (delivers and receives care), what (type of care or HCPs), when (identification of post-COVID and access), and how (eg, telehealth) of care to patients post-COVID. As part of the workgroup, we identified and shared resources on standardized, facility-level practices to reduce variability across the VHA system. These resources included intake/assessment forms, care processes, and batteries of tests/measures used for screening and assessment. The knowledge obtained from outside the CoP and cocreated within is being used to inform data-driven tools to support and evaluate care for patients with long COVID. As such, members of the workgroup are in the formative stages of participating in quality improvement innovation pilots to test technologies and processes designed to improve and validate long COVID care pathways. These technologies include screening tools, clinical decision support tools, and population health management technologies. In addition, we are developing a formal collaboration with the VHA Office of Research and Development to create standardized intake forms across VHA long COVID clinics to facilitate both clinical monitoring and research.

Surveys

The US Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office collaborated with our workgroup to draft an initial set of survey questions designed to understand how each VHA facility defines, identifies, and provides care to veterans experiencing post-COVID sequalae. The 41-question survey was distributed through regional directors and chief medical officers at 139 VHA facilities in August 2021. One hundred nineteen responses (86%) were received. Sixteen facilities indicated they had established programs and 26 facilities were considering a program. Our CoP had representation from the 16 facilities with established programs indicating the deep and well-connected nature of our grassroots efforts to bring together stakeholders to learn as part of a CoP.

A separate, follow-up survey generated responses from 18 facilities and identified the need to capture evolving innovations and to develop smaller workstreams (eg, best practices, electronic documentation templates, pathway for referrals, veteran engagement, outcome measures). The survey not only exposed ongoing challenges to providing long COVID care, but importantly, outlined the ways in which CoP members were leveraging community knowledge and resources to inform innovations and processes of care changes at their specific sites. Fourteen of 18 facilities with long COVID programs in place explicitly identified the CoP as a resource they have found most beneficial when employing such innovations. Specific innovations reported included changes in care delivery, engagement in active outreach with veterans and local facility, and infrastructure development to sustain local long COVID clinics (Table).

Future Directions

Our CoP strives to contribute to an evidence base for long COVID care. At the system level, the CoP has the potential to impact access and continuity of care by identifying appropriate processes and ensuring that VHA patients receive outreach and an opportunity for post-COVID care. Comprehensive care requires input from HCP, clinical leadership, and operations levels. In this sense, our CoP provides an opportunity for diverse stakeholders to come together, discuss barriers to screening and delivering post-COVID care, and create an action plan to remove or lessen such barriers.¹⁸ Part of the process to remove barriers is to identify and support efficient resource allocation. Our CoP has worked to address issues in resource allocation (eg, space, personnel) for post-COVID care. For example, one facility is currently implementing interdisciplinary virtual post-COVID care. Another facility identified and restructured working assignments for psychologists who served in different capacities throughout the system to fill the need within the long COVID team.

At the HCP level, the CoP is currently developing workshops, media campaigns, written clinical resources, skills training, publications, and webinars/seminars with continuing medical education credits.¹⁹ The CoP may also provide learning and growth opportunities, such as clinical or VHA operational fellowships and research grants.

We are still in the formative stages of post-COVID care and future efforts will explore patient-centered outcomes. We are drawing on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for evaluating patients with long COVID symptoms and examining the feasibility within VHA, as well as patient perspectives on post-COVID sequalae, to ensure we are selecting assessments that measure patient-centered constructs.¹⁸

Conclusions

A VHA-wide LHS approach is identifying issues related to the identification, delivery, and evaluation of long COVID care. This long COVID CoP has developed an infrastructure for communication, identified gaps in care, and cocreated knowledge related to best current practices for post-COVID care. This work is contributing to systemwide LHS efforts dedicated to creating a culture of quality care and innovation and is a process that is transferrable to other areas of care in the VHA, as well as other health care systems. The LHS approach continues to be highly relevant as we persist through the COVID-19 pandemic and reimagine a postpandemic world.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the members of the Veterans Health Administration long COVID Community of Practice who participate in the meetings and contribute to the sharing and spread of knowledge.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA)—along with systems across the world—has spent the past 2 years continuously adapting to meet the emerging needs of persons infected with COVID-19. With the development of effective vaccines and global efforts to mitigate transmission, attention has now shifted to long COVID care as the need for further outpatient health care becomes increasingly apparent.^1,2

Background

Multiple terms describe the lingering, multisystem sequelae of COVID-19 that last longer than 4 weeks: long COVID, postacute COVID-19 syndrome, post-COVID condition, postacute sequalae of COVID-19, and COVID long hauler.^1,3 Common symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, sleep disorders, brain fog or cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, pain, and changes in taste or smell that impact a person’s functioning.^4,5 The multisystem nature of the postacute course of COVID-19 necessitates an interdisciplinary approach to devise comprehensive and individualized care plans.^6-9 Research is needed to better understand this postacute state (eg, prevalence, underlying effects, characteristics of those who experience long COVID) to establish and evaluate cost-effective treatment approaches.

Many patients who are experiencing symptoms beyond the acute course of COVID-19 have been referred to general outpatient clinics or home health, which may lack the capacity and knowledge of this novel disease to effectively manage complex long COVID cases.^2,3 To address this growing need, clinicians and leadership across a variety of disciplines and settings in the VHA created a community of practice (CoP) to create a mechanism for cross-facility communication, identify gaps in long COVID care and research, and cocreate knowledge on best practices for care delivery.

In this spirit, we are embracing a learning health system (LHS) approach that uses rapid-cycle methods to integrate data and real-world experience to iteratively evaluate and adapt models of long COVID care.¹⁰ Our clinically identified and data-driven objective is to provide high value health care to patients with long COVID sequalae by creating a framework to learn about this novel condition and develop innovative care models. This article provides an overview of our emerging LHS approach to the study of long COVID care that is fostering innovation and adaptability within the VHA. We describe 3 aspects of our engagement approach central to LHS: the ongoing development of a long COVID CoP dedicated to iteratively informing the bidirectional cycle of data from practice to research, results of a broad environmental scan of VHA long COVID care, and results of a survey administered to CoP members to inform ongoing needs of the community and identify early successful outcomes from participation.

Learning Health System Approach

The VHA is one of the largest integrated health care systems in the United States serving more than 9 million veterans.¹¹ Since 2017, the VHA has articulated a vision to become an LHS that informs and improves patient-centered care through practice-based and data-driven research (eAppendix).¹² During the early COVID-19 pandemic, an LHS approach in the VHA was critical to rapidly establishing a data infrastructure for disease surveillance, coordinating data-driven solutions, leveraging use of technology, collaborating across the globe to identify best practices, and implementing systematic responses (eg, policies, workforce adjustments).

Our long COVID CoP was developed as clinical observations and ongoing conversations with stakeholders (eg, veterans, health care practitioners [HCPs], leadership) identified a need to effectively identify and treat the growing number of veterans with long COVID. This clinical issue is compounded by the limited but emerging evidence on the clinical presentation of prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, treatment, and subsequent care pathways. The VHA’s efforts and lessons learned within the lens of an LHS are applicable to other systems confronting the complex identification and management of patients with persistent and encumbering long COVID symptoms. The VHA is building upon the LHS approach to proactively prepare for and address future clinical or public health challenges that require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient/family centeredness.¹¹

Community of Practice

As of January 25, 2022, our workgroup consisted of 128 VHA employees representing 29 VHA medical centers. Members of the multidisciplinary workgroup have diverse backgrounds with HCPs from primary care (eg, physicians, nurse practitioners), rehabilitation (eg, physical therapists), specialty care (eg, pulmonologists, physiatrists), mental health (eg, psychologists), and complementary and integrated health/Whole Health services (eg, practitoners of services such as yoga, tai chi, mindfulness, acupuncture). Members also include clinical, operations, and research leadership at local, regional, and national VHA levels. Our first objective as a large, diverse group was to establish shared goals, which included: (1) determining efficient communication pathways; (2) identifying gaps in care or research; and (3) cocreating knowledge to provide solutions to identified gaps.

Communication Mechanisms

Our first goal was to create an efficient mechanism for cross-facility communication. The initial CoP was formed in April 2021 and the first virtual meeting focused on reaching a consensus regarding the best way to communicate and proceed. We agreed to convene weekly at a consistent time, created a standard agenda template, and elected a lead facilitator of meeting proceedings. In addition, a member of the CoP recorded and took extensive meeting notes, which were later distributed to the entire CoP to accommodate varying schedules and ability to attend live meetings. Approximately 20 to 30 participants attend the meetings in real-time.

To consolidate working documents, information, and resources in one location, we created a platform to communicate via a Microsoft Teams channel. All CoP members are given access to the folders and allowed to add to the growing library of resources. Resources include clinical assessment and note templates for electronic documentation of care, site-specific process maps, relevant literature on screening and interventions identified by practice members, and meeting notes along with the recordings. A chat feature alerts CoP members to questions posed by other members. Any resources or information shared on the chat discussion are curated by CoP leaders to disseminate to all members. Importantly, this platform allowed us to communicate efficiently within the VHA organization by creating a centralized space for documents and the ability to correspond with all or select members of the CoP. Additional VHA employees can easily be referred and request access.

To increase awareness of the CoP, expand reach, and diversify perspectives, every participant was encouraged to invite colleagues and stakeholders with interest or experience in long COVID care to join. While patients are not included in this CoP, we are working closely with the VHA user experience workgroup (many members overlap) that is gathering patient and caregiver perspectives on their COVID-19 experience and long COVID care. Concurrently, CoP members and leadership facilitate communication and set up formal collaborations with other non-VHA health care systems to create an intersystem network of collaboration for long COVID care. This approach further enhances the speed at which we can work together to share lessons learned and stay up-to-date on emerging evidence surrounding long COVID care.

Identifying Gaps in Care and Research

Our second goal was to identify gaps in care or knowledge to inform future research and quality improvement initiatives, while also creating a foundation to cocreate knowledge about safe, effective care management of the novel long COVID sequelae. To translate knowledge, we must first identify and understand the gaps between the current, best available evidence and current care practices or policies impacting that delivery.¹³ As such, the structured meeting agenda and facilitated meeting discussions focused on understanding current clinical decision making and the evidence base. We shared VHA evidence synthesis reports and living rapid reviews on complications following COVID-19 illness (ie, major organ damage and posthospitalization health care use) that provided an objective evidence base on common long COVID complications.^14,15

Since long COVID is a novel condition, we drew from literature in similar patient populations and translated that information in the context of our current knowledge of this unique syndrome. For example, we discussed the predominant and persistent symptom of fatigue post-COVID.⁵ In particular, the CoP discussed challenges in identifying and treating post-COVID fatigue, which is often a vague symptom with multiple or interacting etiologies that require a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. As such, we reviewed, adapted, and translated identification and treatment strategies from the literature on chronic fatigue syndrome to patients with post-COVID syndrome.^16,17 We continue to work collaboratively and engage the appropriate stakeholders to provide input on the gaps to prioritize targeting.

Cocreate Knowledge

Our third goal was to cocreate knowledge regarding the care of patients with long COVID. To accomplish this, our structured meetings and communication pathways invited members to share experiences on the who (delivers and receives care), what (type of care or HCPs), when (identification of post-COVID and access), and how (eg, telehealth) of care to patients post-COVID. As part of the workgroup, we identified and shared resources on standardized, facility-level practices to reduce variability across the VHA system. These resources included intake/assessment forms, care processes, and batteries of tests/measures used for screening and assessment. The knowledge obtained from outside the CoP and cocreated within is being used to inform data-driven tools to support and evaluate care for patients with long COVID. As such, members of the workgroup are in the formative stages of participating in quality improvement innovation pilots to test technologies and processes designed to improve and validate long COVID care pathways. These technologies include screening tools, clinical decision support tools, and population health management technologies. In addition, we are developing a formal collaboration with the VHA Office of Research and Development to create standardized intake forms across VHA long COVID clinics to facilitate both clinical monitoring and research.

Surveys

The US Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office collaborated with our workgroup to draft an initial set of survey questions designed to understand how each VHA facility defines, identifies, and provides care to veterans experiencing post-COVID sequalae. The 41-question survey was distributed through regional directors and chief medical officers at 139 VHA facilities in August 2021. One hundred nineteen responses (86%) were received. Sixteen facilities indicated they had established programs and 26 facilities were considering a program. Our CoP had representation from the 16 facilities with established programs indicating the deep and well-connected nature of our grassroots efforts to bring together stakeholders to learn as part of a CoP.

A separate, follow-up survey generated responses from 18 facilities and identified the need to capture evolving innovations and to develop smaller workstreams (eg, best practices, electronic documentation templates, pathway for referrals, veteran engagement, outcome measures). The survey not only exposed ongoing challenges to providing long COVID care, but importantly, outlined the ways in which CoP members were leveraging community knowledge and resources to inform innovations and processes of care changes at their specific sites. Fourteen of 18 facilities with long COVID programs in place explicitly identified the CoP as a resource they have found most beneficial when employing such innovations. Specific innovations reported included changes in care delivery, engagement in active outreach with veterans and local facility, and infrastructure development to sustain local long COVID clinics (Table).

Future Directions

Our CoP strives to contribute to an evidence base for long COVID care. At the system level, the CoP has the potential to impact access and continuity of care by identifying appropriate processes and ensuring that VHA patients receive outreach and an opportunity for post-COVID care. Comprehensive care requires input from HCP, clinical leadership, and operations levels. In this sense, our CoP provides an opportunity for diverse stakeholders to come together, discuss barriers to screening and delivering post-COVID care, and create an action plan to remove or lessen such barriers.¹⁸ Part of the process to remove barriers is to identify and support efficient resource allocation. Our CoP has worked to address issues in resource allocation (eg, space, personnel) for post-COVID care. For example, one facility is currently implementing interdisciplinary virtual post-COVID care. Another facility identified and restructured working assignments for psychologists who served in different capacities throughout the system to fill the need within the long COVID team.

At the HCP level, the CoP is currently developing workshops, media campaigns, written clinical resources, skills training, publications, and webinars/seminars with continuing medical education credits.¹⁹ The CoP may also provide learning and growth opportunities, such as clinical or VHA operational fellowships and research grants.

We are still in the formative stages of post-COVID care and future efforts will explore patient-centered outcomes. We are drawing on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for evaluating patients with long COVID symptoms and examining the feasibility within VHA, as well as patient perspectives on post-COVID sequalae, to ensure we are selecting assessments that measure patient-centered constructs.¹⁸

Conclusions

A VHA-wide LHS approach is identifying issues related to the identification, delivery, and evaluation of long COVID care. This long COVID CoP has developed an infrastructure for communication, identified gaps in care, and cocreated knowledge related to best current practices for post-COVID care. This work is contributing to systemwide LHS efforts dedicated to creating a culture of quality care and innovation and is a process that is transferrable to other areas of care in the VHA, as well as other health care systems. The LHS approach continues to be highly relevant as we persist through the COVID-19 pandemic and reimagine a postpandemic world.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the members of the Veterans Health Administration long COVID Community of Practice who participate in the meetings and contribute to the sharing and spread of knowledge.

The Veterans Health Administration (VHA)—along with systems across the world—has spent the past 2 years continuously adapting to meet the emerging needs of persons infected with COVID-19. With the development of effective vaccines and global efforts to mitigate transmission, attention has now shifted to long COVID care as the need for further outpatient health care becomes increasingly apparent.^1,2

Background

Multiple terms describe the lingering, multisystem sequelae of COVID-19 that last longer than 4 weeks: long COVID, postacute COVID-19 syndrome, post-COVID condition, postacute sequalae of COVID-19, and COVID long hauler.^1,3 Common symptoms include fatigue, shortness of breath, cough, sleep disorders, brain fog or cognitive dysfunction, depression, anxiety, pain, and changes in taste or smell that impact a person’s functioning.^4,5 The multisystem nature of the postacute course of COVID-19 necessitates an interdisciplinary approach to devise comprehensive and individualized care plans.^6-9 Research is needed to better understand this postacute state (eg, prevalence, underlying effects, characteristics of those who experience long COVID) to establish and evaluate cost-effective treatment approaches.

Many patients who are experiencing symptoms beyond the acute course of COVID-19 have been referred to general outpatient clinics or home health, which may lack the capacity and knowledge of this novel disease to effectively manage complex long COVID cases.^2,3 To address this growing need, clinicians and leadership across a variety of disciplines and settings in the VHA created a community of practice (CoP) to create a mechanism for cross-facility communication, identify gaps in long COVID care and research, and cocreate knowledge on best practices for care delivery.

In this spirit, we are embracing a learning health system (LHS) approach that uses rapid-cycle methods to integrate data and real-world experience to iteratively evaluate and adapt models of long COVID care.¹⁰ Our clinically identified and data-driven objective is to provide high value health care to patients with long COVID sequalae by creating a framework to learn about this novel condition and develop innovative care models. This article provides an overview of our emerging LHS approach to the study of long COVID care that is fostering innovation and adaptability within the VHA. We describe 3 aspects of our engagement approach central to LHS: the ongoing development of a long COVID CoP dedicated to iteratively informing the bidirectional cycle of data from practice to research, results of a broad environmental scan of VHA long COVID care, and results of a survey administered to CoP members to inform ongoing needs of the community and identify early successful outcomes from participation.

Learning Health System Approach

The VHA is one of the largest integrated health care systems in the United States serving more than 9 million veterans.¹¹ Since 2017, the VHA has articulated a vision to become an LHS that informs and improves patient-centered care through practice-based and data-driven research (eAppendix).¹² During the early COVID-19 pandemic, an LHS approach in the VHA was critical to rapidly establishing a data infrastructure for disease surveillance, coordinating data-driven solutions, leveraging use of technology, collaborating across the globe to identify best practices, and implementing systematic responses (eg, policies, workforce adjustments).

Our long COVID CoP was developed as clinical observations and ongoing conversations with stakeholders (eg, veterans, health care practitioners [HCPs], leadership) identified a need to effectively identify and treat the growing number of veterans with long COVID. This clinical issue is compounded by the limited but emerging evidence on the clinical presentation of prolonged COVID-19 symptoms, treatment, and subsequent care pathways. The VHA’s efforts and lessons learned within the lens of an LHS are applicable to other systems confronting the complex identification and management of patients with persistent and encumbering long COVID symptoms. The VHA is building upon the LHS approach to proactively prepare for and address future clinical or public health challenges that require cross-system and sector collaborations, expediency, inclusivity, and patient/family centeredness.¹¹

Community of Practice

As of January 25, 2022, our workgroup consisted of 128 VHA employees representing 29 VHA medical centers. Members of the multidisciplinary workgroup have diverse backgrounds with HCPs from primary care (eg, physicians, nurse practitioners), rehabilitation (eg, physical therapists), specialty care (eg, pulmonologists, physiatrists), mental health (eg, psychologists), and complementary and integrated health/Whole Health services (eg, practitoners of services such as yoga, tai chi, mindfulness, acupuncture). Members also include clinical, operations, and research leadership at local, regional, and national VHA levels. Our first objective as a large, diverse group was to establish shared goals, which included: (1) determining efficient communication pathways; (2) identifying gaps in care or research; and (3) cocreating knowledge to provide solutions to identified gaps.

Communication Mechanisms

Our first goal was to create an efficient mechanism for cross-facility communication. The initial CoP was formed in April 2021 and the first virtual meeting focused on reaching a consensus regarding the best way to communicate and proceed. We agreed to convene weekly at a consistent time, created a standard agenda template, and elected a lead facilitator of meeting proceedings. In addition, a member of the CoP recorded and took extensive meeting notes, which were later distributed to the entire CoP to accommodate varying schedules and ability to attend live meetings. Approximately 20 to 30 participants attend the meetings in real-time.

To consolidate working documents, information, and resources in one location, we created a platform to communicate via a Microsoft Teams channel. All CoP members are given access to the folders and allowed to add to the growing library of resources. Resources include clinical assessment and note templates for electronic documentation of care, site-specific process maps, relevant literature on screening and interventions identified by practice members, and meeting notes along with the recordings. A chat feature alerts CoP members to questions posed by other members. Any resources or information shared on the chat discussion are curated by CoP leaders to disseminate to all members. Importantly, this platform allowed us to communicate efficiently within the VHA organization by creating a centralized space for documents and the ability to correspond with all or select members of the CoP. Additional VHA employees can easily be referred and request access.

To increase awareness of the CoP, expand reach, and diversify perspectives, every participant was encouraged to invite colleagues and stakeholders with interest or experience in long COVID care to join. While patients are not included in this CoP, we are working closely with the VHA user experience workgroup (many members overlap) that is gathering patient and caregiver perspectives on their COVID-19 experience and long COVID care. Concurrently, CoP members and leadership facilitate communication and set up formal collaborations with other non-VHA health care systems to create an intersystem network of collaboration for long COVID care. This approach further enhances the speed at which we can work together to share lessons learned and stay up-to-date on emerging evidence surrounding long COVID care.

Identifying Gaps in Care and Research

Our second goal was to identify gaps in care or knowledge to inform future research and quality improvement initiatives, while also creating a foundation to cocreate knowledge about safe, effective care management of the novel long COVID sequelae. To translate knowledge, we must first identify and understand the gaps between the current, best available evidence and current care practices or policies impacting that delivery.¹³ As such, the structured meeting agenda and facilitated meeting discussions focused on understanding current clinical decision making and the evidence base. We shared VHA evidence synthesis reports and living rapid reviews on complications following COVID-19 illness (ie, major organ damage and posthospitalization health care use) that provided an objective evidence base on common long COVID complications.^14,15

Since long COVID is a novel condition, we drew from literature in similar patient populations and translated that information in the context of our current knowledge of this unique syndrome. For example, we discussed the predominant and persistent symptom of fatigue post-COVID.⁵ In particular, the CoP discussed challenges in identifying and treating post-COVID fatigue, which is often a vague symptom with multiple or interacting etiologies that require a comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach. As such, we reviewed, adapted, and translated identification and treatment strategies from the literature on chronic fatigue syndrome to patients with post-COVID syndrome.^16,17 We continue to work collaboratively and engage the appropriate stakeholders to provide input on the gaps to prioritize targeting.

Cocreate Knowledge

Our third goal was to cocreate knowledge regarding the care of patients with long COVID. To accomplish this, our structured meetings and communication pathways invited members to share experiences on the who (delivers and receives care), what (type of care or HCPs), when (identification of post-COVID and access), and how (eg, telehealth) of care to patients post-COVID. As part of the workgroup, we identified and shared resources on standardized, facility-level practices to reduce variability across the VHA system. These resources included intake/assessment forms, care processes, and batteries of tests/measures used for screening and assessment. The knowledge obtained from outside the CoP and cocreated within is being used to inform data-driven tools to support and evaluate care for patients with long COVID. As such, members of the workgroup are in the formative stages of participating in quality improvement innovation pilots to test technologies and processes designed to improve and validate long COVID care pathways. These technologies include screening tools, clinical decision support tools, and population health management technologies. In addition, we are developing a formal collaboration with the VHA Office of Research and Development to create standardized intake forms across VHA long COVID clinics to facilitate both clinical monitoring and research.

Surveys

The US Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office collaborated with our workgroup to draft an initial set of survey questions designed to understand how each VHA facility defines, identifies, and provides care to veterans experiencing post-COVID sequalae. The 41-question survey was distributed through regional directors and chief medical officers at 139 VHA facilities in August 2021. One hundred nineteen responses (86%) were received. Sixteen facilities indicated they had established programs and 26 facilities were considering a program. Our CoP had representation from the 16 facilities with established programs indicating the deep and well-connected nature of our grassroots efforts to bring together stakeholders to learn as part of a CoP.

A separate, follow-up survey generated responses from 18 facilities and identified the need to capture evolving innovations and to develop smaller workstreams (eg, best practices, electronic documentation templates, pathway for referrals, veteran engagement, outcome measures). The survey not only exposed ongoing challenges to providing long COVID care, but importantly, outlined the ways in which CoP members were leveraging community knowledge and resources to inform innovations and processes of care changes at their specific sites. Fourteen of 18 facilities with long COVID programs in place explicitly identified the CoP as a resource they have found most beneficial when employing such innovations. Specific innovations reported included changes in care delivery, engagement in active outreach with veterans and local facility, and infrastructure development to sustain local long COVID clinics (Table).

Future Directions

Our CoP strives to contribute to an evidence base for long COVID care. At the system level, the CoP has the potential to impact access and continuity of care by identifying appropriate processes and ensuring that VHA patients receive outreach and an opportunity for post-COVID care. Comprehensive care requires input from HCP, clinical leadership, and operations levels. In this sense, our CoP provides an opportunity for diverse stakeholders to come together, discuss barriers to screening and delivering post-COVID care, and create an action plan to remove or lessen such barriers.¹⁸ Part of the process to remove barriers is to identify and support efficient resource allocation. Our CoP has worked to address issues in resource allocation (eg, space, personnel) for post-COVID care. For example, one facility is currently implementing interdisciplinary virtual post-COVID care. Another facility identified and restructured working assignments for psychologists who served in different capacities throughout the system to fill the need within the long COVID team.

At the HCP level, the CoP is currently developing workshops, media campaigns, written clinical resources, skills training, publications, and webinars/seminars with continuing medical education credits.¹⁹ The CoP may also provide learning and growth opportunities, such as clinical or VHA operational fellowships and research grants.

We are still in the formative stages of post-COVID care and future efforts will explore patient-centered outcomes. We are drawing on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s guidance for evaluating patients with long COVID symptoms and examining the feasibility within VHA, as well as patient perspectives on post-COVID sequalae, to ensure we are selecting assessments that measure patient-centered constructs.¹⁸

Conclusions

A VHA-wide LHS approach is identifying issues related to the identification, delivery, and evaluation of long COVID care. This long COVID CoP has developed an infrastructure for communication, identified gaps in care, and cocreated knowledge related to best current practices for post-COVID care. This work is contributing to systemwide LHS efforts dedicated to creating a culture of quality care and innovation and is a process that is transferrable to other areas of care in the VHA, as well as other health care systems. The LHS approach continues to be highly relevant as we persist through the COVID-19 pandemic and reimagine a postpandemic world.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the members of the Veterans Health Administration long COVID Community of Practice who participate in the meetings and contribute to the sharing and spread of knowledge.

A New York state radiation oncologist accused of gross negligence and incompetence back in 2018 has now lost his medical license.

The state Board for Professional Medical Conduct has revoked the medical license of Won Sam Yi, MD, following a lengthy review of the care he provided to seven cancer patients; six of them died.

“He is a danger to potential new patients should he be reinstated as a radiation oncologist,” board members wrote, according to a news report in the Buffalo News.

Dr. Yi’s lawyer said that he is appealing the decision.

Dr. Yi was the former CEO of the now-defunct private cancer practice CCS Oncology, located in western New York.

In 2018, the state health department brought numerous charges of professional misconduct against Dr. Yi, including charges that he had failed to “account for prior doses of radiotherapy” as well as exceeding “appropriate tissue tolerances” during the treatment.

Now, the state’s Board for Professional Medical Conduct has upheld nearly all of the departmental charges that had been levied against him, and also found that Dr. Yi failed to take responsibility or show contrition for his treatment decisions.

However, whistleblower claims from a former CSS Oncology employee were dismissed.
 

Troubled history

CCS Oncology was once one of the largest private cancer practices in Erie and Niagara counties, both in the Buffalo metropolitan area.

Dr. Yi purchased CCS Oncology in 2008 and was its sole shareholder, and in 2012 he also acquired CCS Medical. As of 2016, the practices provided care to about 30% of cancer patients in the region. CCS also began acquiring other practices as it expanded into noncancer specialties, including primary care.

However, CCS began to struggle financially in late 2016, when health insurance provider Independent Health announced it was removing CCS Oncology from its network, and several vendors and lenders subsequently sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The announcement from Independent Health was “financially devastating to CCS,” and also was “the direct cause” of the practice defaulting on its Bank of America loan and of the practice’s inability to pay not only its vendors but state and federal tax agencies, the Buffalo News reported. As a result, several vendors and lenders had sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The FBI raided numerous CCS locations in March 2018, seizing financial and other data as part of an investigation into possible Medicare billing fraud. The following month, CCS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing it owed millions of dollars to Bank of America and other creditors. Shortly afterward, the practice closed.
 

Medical misconduct

The state’s charges of professional misconduct accused Dr. Yi of “gross negligence,” “gross incompetence,” and several other cases of misconduct in treating seven patients between 2009 and 2013 at various CCS locations. The patients ranged in age from 27 to 72. Six of the seven patients died.

In one case, Dr. Yi was accused of providing whole-brain radiation therapy to a 43-year-old woman for about 6 weeks in 2012, but the treatment was “contrary to medical indications” and did not take into account prior doses of such treatment. The patient died in December of that year, and the board concluded that Dr. Yi had improperly treated her with a high dose of radiation that was intended to cure her cancer even though she was at a stage where her disease was incurable.

The state board eventually concluded that for all but one of the patients in question, Dr. Yi was guilty of misconduct in his treatment decisions. They wrote that Dr. Yi had frequently administered radiation doses without taking into account how much radiation therapy the patients had received previously and without considering the risk of serious complications for them.

Dr. Yi plans to appeal the board’s decision in state court, according to his attorney, Anthony Scher.

“Dr Yi has treated over 10,000 patients in his career,” Mr. Scher told the Buffalo News. “These handful of cases don’t represent the thousands of success stories that he’s had.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A New York state radiation oncologist accused of gross negligence and incompetence back in 2018 has now lost his medical license.

The state Board for Professional Medical Conduct has revoked the medical license of Won Sam Yi, MD, following a lengthy review of the care he provided to seven cancer patients; six of them died.

“He is a danger to potential new patients should he be reinstated as a radiation oncologist,” board members wrote, according to a news report in the Buffalo News.

Dr. Yi’s lawyer said that he is appealing the decision.

Dr. Yi was the former CEO of the now-defunct private cancer practice CCS Oncology, located in western New York.

In 2018, the state health department brought numerous charges of professional misconduct against Dr. Yi, including charges that he had failed to “account for prior doses of radiotherapy” as well as exceeding “appropriate tissue tolerances” during the treatment.

Now, the state’s Board for Professional Medical Conduct has upheld nearly all of the departmental charges that had been levied against him, and also found that Dr. Yi failed to take responsibility or show contrition for his treatment decisions.

However, whistleblower claims from a former CSS Oncology employee were dismissed.
 

Troubled history

CCS Oncology was once one of the largest private cancer practices in Erie and Niagara counties, both in the Buffalo metropolitan area.

Dr. Yi purchased CCS Oncology in 2008 and was its sole shareholder, and in 2012 he also acquired CCS Medical. As of 2016, the practices provided care to about 30% of cancer patients in the region. CCS also began acquiring other practices as it expanded into noncancer specialties, including primary care.

However, CCS began to struggle financially in late 2016, when health insurance provider Independent Health announced it was removing CCS Oncology from its network, and several vendors and lenders subsequently sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The announcement from Independent Health was “financially devastating to CCS,” and also was “the direct cause” of the practice defaulting on its Bank of America loan and of the practice’s inability to pay not only its vendors but state and federal tax agencies, the Buffalo News reported. As a result, several vendors and lenders had sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The FBI raided numerous CCS locations in March 2018, seizing financial and other data as part of an investigation into possible Medicare billing fraud. The following month, CCS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing it owed millions of dollars to Bank of America and other creditors. Shortly afterward, the practice closed.
 

Medical misconduct

The state’s charges of professional misconduct accused Dr. Yi of “gross negligence,” “gross incompetence,” and several other cases of misconduct in treating seven patients between 2009 and 2013 at various CCS locations. The patients ranged in age from 27 to 72. Six of the seven patients died.

In one case, Dr. Yi was accused of providing whole-brain radiation therapy to a 43-year-old woman for about 6 weeks in 2012, but the treatment was “contrary to medical indications” and did not take into account prior doses of such treatment. The patient died in December of that year, and the board concluded that Dr. Yi had improperly treated her with a high dose of radiation that was intended to cure her cancer even though she was at a stage where her disease was incurable.

The state board eventually concluded that for all but one of the patients in question, Dr. Yi was guilty of misconduct in his treatment decisions. They wrote that Dr. Yi had frequently administered radiation doses without taking into account how much radiation therapy the patients had received previously and without considering the risk of serious complications for them.

Dr. Yi plans to appeal the board’s decision in state court, according to his attorney, Anthony Scher.

“Dr Yi has treated over 10,000 patients in his career,” Mr. Scher told the Buffalo News. “These handful of cases don’t represent the thousands of success stories that he’s had.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A New York state radiation oncologist accused of gross negligence and incompetence back in 2018 has now lost his medical license.

The state Board for Professional Medical Conduct has revoked the medical license of Won Sam Yi, MD, following a lengthy review of the care he provided to seven cancer patients; six of them died.

“He is a danger to potential new patients should he be reinstated as a radiation oncologist,” board members wrote, according to a news report in the Buffalo News.

Dr. Yi’s lawyer said that he is appealing the decision.

Dr. Yi was the former CEO of the now-defunct private cancer practice CCS Oncology, located in western New York.

In 2018, the state health department brought numerous charges of professional misconduct against Dr. Yi, including charges that he had failed to “account for prior doses of radiotherapy” as well as exceeding “appropriate tissue tolerances” during the treatment.

Now, the state’s Board for Professional Medical Conduct has upheld nearly all of the departmental charges that had been levied against him, and also found that Dr. Yi failed to take responsibility or show contrition for his treatment decisions.

However, whistleblower claims from a former CSS Oncology employee were dismissed.
 

Troubled history

CCS Oncology was once one of the largest private cancer practices in Erie and Niagara counties, both in the Buffalo metropolitan area.

Dr. Yi purchased CCS Oncology in 2008 and was its sole shareholder, and in 2012 he also acquired CCS Medical. As of 2016, the practices provided care to about 30% of cancer patients in the region. CCS also began acquiring other practices as it expanded into noncancer specialties, including primary care.

However, CCS began to struggle financially in late 2016, when health insurance provider Independent Health announced it was removing CCS Oncology from its network, and several vendors and lenders subsequently sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The announcement from Independent Health was “financially devastating to CCS,” and also was “the direct cause” of the practice defaulting on its Bank of America loan and of the practice’s inability to pay not only its vendors but state and federal tax agencies, the Buffalo News reported. As a result, several vendors and lenders had sued CCS and Dr. Yi for nonpayment.

The FBI raided numerous CCS locations in March 2018, seizing financial and other data as part of an investigation into possible Medicare billing fraud. The following month, CCS filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, citing it owed millions of dollars to Bank of America and other creditors. Shortly afterward, the practice closed.
 

Medical misconduct

The state’s charges of professional misconduct accused Dr. Yi of “gross negligence,” “gross incompetence,” and several other cases of misconduct in treating seven patients between 2009 and 2013 at various CCS locations. The patients ranged in age from 27 to 72. Six of the seven patients died.

In one case, Dr. Yi was accused of providing whole-brain radiation therapy to a 43-year-old woman for about 6 weeks in 2012, but the treatment was “contrary to medical indications” and did not take into account prior doses of such treatment. The patient died in December of that year, and the board concluded that Dr. Yi had improperly treated her with a high dose of radiation that was intended to cure her cancer even though she was at a stage where her disease was incurable.

The state board eventually concluded that for all but one of the patients in question, Dr. Yi was guilty of misconduct in his treatment decisions. They wrote that Dr. Yi had frequently administered radiation doses without taking into account how much radiation therapy the patients had received previously and without considering the risk of serious complications for them.

Dr. Yi plans to appeal the board’s decision in state court, according to his attorney, Anthony Scher.

“Dr Yi has treated over 10,000 patients in his career,” Mr. Scher told the Buffalo News. “These handful of cases don’t represent the thousands of success stories that he’s had.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Vascular access is a cornerstone of safe and effective medical care. The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to meet vascular access needs has recently increased.^1,2 PICCs offer several advantages over other central venous catheters. These advantages include increased reliability over intermediate to long-term use and reductions in complication rates during insertion.^3,4

Multiple studies have suggested a strong association between the number of PICC lumens and risk of complications, such as central-line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), venous thrombosis, and catheter occlusion.^5-8,9,10-12 These complications may lead to device failure, interrupt therapy, prolonged length of stay, and increased healthcare costs.^13-15 Thus, available guidelines recommend using PICCs with the least clinically necessary number of lumens.^1,16 Quality improvement strategies that have targeted decreasing the number of PICC lumens have reduced complications and healthcare costs.^17-19 However, variability exists in the selection of the number of PICC lumens, and many providers request multilumen devices “just in case” additional lumens are needed.^20,21 Such variation in device selection may stem from the paucity of information that defines the appropriate indications for the use of single- versus multi-lumen PICCs.

Therefore, to ensure appropriateness of PICC use, we designed an intervention to improve selection of the number of PICC lumens.

We conducted this pre–post quasi-experimental study in accordance with SQUIRE guidelines.²² Details regarding clinical parameters associated with the decision to place a PICC, patient characteristics, comorbidities, complications, and laboratory values were collected from the medical records of patients. All PICCs were placed by the Vascular Access Service Team (VAST) during the study period.

Intervention

The intervention consisted of three components: first, all hospitalists, pharmacists, and VAST nurses received education in the form of a CME lecture that emphasized use of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).¹ These criteria define when use of a PICC is appropriate and emphasize how best to select the most appropriate device characteristics such as lumens and catheter gauge. Next, a multidisciplinary task force that consisted of hospitalists, VAST nurses, and pharmacists developed a list of indications specifying when use of a multilumen PICC was appropriate.¹ Third, the order for a PICC in our electronic medical record (EMR) system was modified to set single-lumen PICCs as default. If a multilumen PICC was requested, text-based justification from the ordering clinician was required.

As an additional safeguard, a VAST nurse reviewed the number of lumens and clinical scenario for each PICC order prior to insertion. If the number of lumens ordered was considered inappropriate on the basis of the developed list of MAGIC recommendations, the case was referred to a pharmacist for additional review. The pharmacist then reviewed active and anticipated medications, explored options for adjusting the medication delivery plan, and discussed these options with the ordering clinician to determine the most appropriate number of lumens.

Measures and Definitions

In accordance with the criteria set by the Centers for Disease Control National Healthcare Safety Network,²³ CLABSI was defined as a confirmed positive blood culture with a PICC in place for 48 hours or longer without another identified infection source or a positive PICC tip culture in the setting of clinically suspected infection. Venous thrombosis was defined as symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thromboembolism or pulmonary embolism that was radiographically confirmed after the placement of a PICC or within one week of device removal. Catheter occlusion was captured when documented or when tPA was administered for problems related to the PICC. The appropriateness of the number of PICC lumens was independently adjudicated by an attending physician and clinical pharmacist by comparing the indications of the device placed against predefined appropriateness criteria.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of interest was the change in the proportion of single-lumen PICCs placed. Secondary outcomes included (1) the placement of PICCs with an appropriate number of lumens, (2) the occurrence of PICC-related complications (CLABSI, venous thrombosis, and catheter occlusion), and (3) the need for a second procedure to place a multilumen device or additional vascular access.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate and summarize patient and PICC characteristics. Differences between pre- and postintervention populations were assessed using χ², Fishers exact, t-, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Differences in complications were assessed using the two-sample tests of proportions. Results were reported as medians (IQR) and percentages with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. All statistical tests were two-sided, with P < .05 considered statistically significant. Analyses were conducted with Stata v.14 (stataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Ethical and Regulatory Oversight

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Michigan (IRB#HUM00118168).

Of the 133 PICCs placed preintervention, 64.7% (n = 86) were single lumen, 33.1% (n = 44) were double lumen, and 2.3% (n = 3) were triple lumen. Compared with the preintervention period, the use of single-lumen PICCs significantly increased following the intervention (64.7% to 93.6%; P < .001; Figure 1). As well, the proportion of PICCs with an inappropriate number of lumens decreased from 25.6% to 2.2% (P < .001; Table 1).

Preintervention, 14.3% (95% CI = 8.34-20.23) of the patients with PICCs experienced at least one complication (n = 19). Following the intervention, 15.1% (95% CI = 7.79-22.32) of the 93 patients with PICCs experienced at least one complication (absolute difference = 0.8%, P = .872). With respect to individual complications, CLABSI decreased from 5.3% (n = 7; 95% CI = 1.47-9.06) to 2.2% (n = 2; 95% CI = −0.80-5.10) (P = .239). Similarly, the incidence of catheter occlusion decreased from 8.3% (n = 11; 95% CI = 3.59-12.95) to 6.5% (n = 6; 95% CI = 1.46-11.44; P = .610; Table). Notably, only 12.1% (n = 21) of patients with a single-lumen PICC experienced any complication, whereas 20.0% (n = 10) of patients with a double lumen, and 66.7% (n = 2) with a triple lumen experienced a PICC-associated complication (P = .022). Patients with triple lumens had a significantly higher incidence of catheter occlusion compared with patients that received double- and single-lumen PICCs (66.7% vs. 12.0% and 5.2%, respectively; P = .003).

No patient who received a single-lumen device required a second procedure for the placement of a device with additional lumens. Similarly, no documentation suggesting an insufficient number of PICC lumens or the need for additional vascular access (eg, placement of additional PICCs) was found in medical records of patients postintervention. Pharmacists supporting the interventions and VAST team members reported no disagreements when discussing number of lumens or appropriateness of catheter choice.

In this single center, pre–post quasi-experimental study, a multimodal intervention based on the MAGIC criteria significantly reduced the use of multilumen PICCs. Additionally, a trend toward reductions in complications, including CLABSI and catheter occlusion, was also observed. Notably, these changes in ordering practices did not lead to requests for additional devices or replacement with a multilumen PICC when a single-lumen device was inserted. Collectively, our findings suggest that the use of single-lumen devices in a large direct care service can be feasibly and safely increased through this approach. Larger scale studies that implement MAGIC to inform placement of multilumen PICCs and reduce PICC-related complications now appear necessary.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Vascular access is a cornerstone of safe and effective medical care. The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to meet vascular access needs has recently increased.^1,2 PICCs offer several advantages over other central venous catheters. These advantages include increased reliability over intermediate to long-term use and reductions in complication rates during insertion.^3,4

Multiple studies have suggested a strong association between the number of PICC lumens and risk of complications, such as central-line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), venous thrombosis, and catheter occlusion.^5-8,9,10-12 These complications may lead to device failure, interrupt therapy, prolonged length of stay, and increased healthcare costs.^13-15 Thus, available guidelines recommend using PICCs with the least clinically necessary number of lumens.^1,16 Quality improvement strategies that have targeted decreasing the number of PICC lumens have reduced complications and healthcare costs.^17-19 However, variability exists in the selection of the number of PICC lumens, and many providers request multilumen devices “just in case” additional lumens are needed.^20,21 Such variation in device selection may stem from the paucity of information that defines the appropriate indications for the use of single- versus multi-lumen PICCs.

Therefore, to ensure appropriateness of PICC use, we designed an intervention to improve selection of the number of PICC lumens.

We conducted this pre–post quasi-experimental study in accordance with SQUIRE guidelines.²² Details regarding clinical parameters associated with the decision to place a PICC, patient characteristics, comorbidities, complications, and laboratory values were collected from the medical records of patients. All PICCs were placed by the Vascular Access Service Team (VAST) during the study period.

Intervention

The intervention consisted of three components: first, all hospitalists, pharmacists, and VAST nurses received education in the form of a CME lecture that emphasized use of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).¹ These criteria define when use of a PICC is appropriate and emphasize how best to select the most appropriate device characteristics such as lumens and catheter gauge. Next, a multidisciplinary task force that consisted of hospitalists, VAST nurses, and pharmacists developed a list of indications specifying when use of a multilumen PICC was appropriate.¹ Third, the order for a PICC in our electronic medical record (EMR) system was modified to set single-lumen PICCs as default. If a multilumen PICC was requested, text-based justification from the ordering clinician was required.

As an additional safeguard, a VAST nurse reviewed the number of lumens and clinical scenario for each PICC order prior to insertion. If the number of lumens ordered was considered inappropriate on the basis of the developed list of MAGIC recommendations, the case was referred to a pharmacist for additional review. The pharmacist then reviewed active and anticipated medications, explored options for adjusting the medication delivery plan, and discussed these options with the ordering clinician to determine the most appropriate number of lumens.

Measures and Definitions

In accordance with the criteria set by the Centers for Disease Control National Healthcare Safety Network,²³ CLABSI was defined as a confirmed positive blood culture with a PICC in place for 48 hours or longer without another identified infection source or a positive PICC tip culture in the setting of clinically suspected infection. Venous thrombosis was defined as symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thromboembolism or pulmonary embolism that was radiographically confirmed after the placement of a PICC or within one week of device removal. Catheter occlusion was captured when documented or when tPA was administered for problems related to the PICC. The appropriateness of the number of PICC lumens was independently adjudicated by an attending physician and clinical pharmacist by comparing the indications of the device placed against predefined appropriateness criteria.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of interest was the change in the proportion of single-lumen PICCs placed. Secondary outcomes included (1) the placement of PICCs with an appropriate number of lumens, (2) the occurrence of PICC-related complications (CLABSI, venous thrombosis, and catheter occlusion), and (3) the need for a second procedure to place a multilumen device or additional vascular access.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate and summarize patient and PICC characteristics. Differences between pre- and postintervention populations were assessed using χ², Fishers exact, t-, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Differences in complications were assessed using the two-sample tests of proportions. Results were reported as medians (IQR) and percentages with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. All statistical tests were two-sided, with P < .05 considered statistically significant. Analyses were conducted with Stata v.14 (stataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Ethical and Regulatory Oversight

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Michigan (IRB#HUM00118168).

Of the 133 PICCs placed preintervention, 64.7% (n = 86) were single lumen, 33.1% (n = 44) were double lumen, and 2.3% (n = 3) were triple lumen. Compared with the preintervention period, the use of single-lumen PICCs significantly increased following the intervention (64.7% to 93.6%; P < .001; Figure 1). As well, the proportion of PICCs with an inappropriate number of lumens decreased from 25.6% to 2.2% (P < .001; Table 1).

Preintervention, 14.3% (95% CI = 8.34-20.23) of the patients with PICCs experienced at least one complication (n = 19). Following the intervention, 15.1% (95% CI = 7.79-22.32) of the 93 patients with PICCs experienced at least one complication (absolute difference = 0.8%, P = .872). With respect to individual complications, CLABSI decreased from 5.3% (n = 7; 95% CI = 1.47-9.06) to 2.2% (n = 2; 95% CI = −0.80-5.10) (P = .239). Similarly, the incidence of catheter occlusion decreased from 8.3% (n = 11; 95% CI = 3.59-12.95) to 6.5% (n = 6; 95% CI = 1.46-11.44; P = .610; Table). Notably, only 12.1% (n = 21) of patients with a single-lumen PICC experienced any complication, whereas 20.0% (n = 10) of patients with a double lumen, and 66.7% (n = 2) with a triple lumen experienced a PICC-associated complication (P = .022). Patients with triple lumens had a significantly higher incidence of catheter occlusion compared with patients that received double- and single-lumen PICCs (66.7% vs. 12.0% and 5.2%, respectively; P = .003).

No patient who received a single-lumen device required a second procedure for the placement of a device with additional lumens. Similarly, no documentation suggesting an insufficient number of PICC lumens or the need for additional vascular access (eg, placement of additional PICCs) was found in medical records of patients postintervention. Pharmacists supporting the interventions and VAST team members reported no disagreements when discussing number of lumens or appropriateness of catheter choice.

In this single center, pre–post quasi-experimental study, a multimodal intervention based on the MAGIC criteria significantly reduced the use of multilumen PICCs. Additionally, a trend toward reductions in complications, including CLABSI and catheter occlusion, was also observed. Notably, these changes in ordering practices did not lead to requests for additional devices or replacement with a multilumen PICC when a single-lumen device was inserted. Collectively, our findings suggest that the use of single-lumen devices in a large direct care service can be feasibly and safely increased through this approach. Larger scale studies that implement MAGIC to inform placement of multilumen PICCs and reduce PICC-related complications now appear necessary.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

Vascular access is a cornerstone of safe and effective medical care. The use of peripherally inserted central catheters (PICCs) to meet vascular access needs has recently increased.^1,2 PICCs offer several advantages over other central venous catheters. These advantages include increased reliability over intermediate to long-term use and reductions in complication rates during insertion.^3,4

Multiple studies have suggested a strong association between the number of PICC lumens and risk of complications, such as central-line associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI), venous thrombosis, and catheter occlusion.^5-8,9,10-12 These complications may lead to device failure, interrupt therapy, prolonged length of stay, and increased healthcare costs.^13-15 Thus, available guidelines recommend using PICCs with the least clinically necessary number of lumens.^1,16 Quality improvement strategies that have targeted decreasing the number of PICC lumens have reduced complications and healthcare costs.^17-19 However, variability exists in the selection of the number of PICC lumens, and many providers request multilumen devices “just in case” additional lumens are needed.^20,21 Such variation in device selection may stem from the paucity of information that defines the appropriate indications for the use of single- versus multi-lumen PICCs.

Therefore, to ensure appropriateness of PICC use, we designed an intervention to improve selection of the number of PICC lumens.

We conducted this pre–post quasi-experimental study in accordance with SQUIRE guidelines.²² Details regarding clinical parameters associated with the decision to place a PICC, patient characteristics, comorbidities, complications, and laboratory values were collected from the medical records of patients. All PICCs were placed by the Vascular Access Service Team (VAST) during the study period.

Intervention

The intervention consisted of three components: first, all hospitalists, pharmacists, and VAST nurses received education in the form of a CME lecture that emphasized use of the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).¹ These criteria define when use of a PICC is appropriate and emphasize how best to select the most appropriate device characteristics such as lumens and catheter gauge. Next, a multidisciplinary task force that consisted of hospitalists, VAST nurses, and pharmacists developed a list of indications specifying when use of a multilumen PICC was appropriate.¹ Third, the order for a PICC in our electronic medical record (EMR) system was modified to set single-lumen PICCs as default. If a multilumen PICC was requested, text-based justification from the ordering clinician was required.

As an additional safeguard, a VAST nurse reviewed the number of lumens and clinical scenario for each PICC order prior to insertion. If the number of lumens ordered was considered inappropriate on the basis of the developed list of MAGIC recommendations, the case was referred to a pharmacist for additional review. The pharmacist then reviewed active and anticipated medications, explored options for adjusting the medication delivery plan, and discussed these options with the ordering clinician to determine the most appropriate number of lumens.

Measures and Definitions

In accordance with the criteria set by the Centers for Disease Control National Healthcare Safety Network,²³ CLABSI was defined as a confirmed positive blood culture with a PICC in place for 48 hours or longer without another identified infection source or a positive PICC tip culture in the setting of clinically suspected infection. Venous thrombosis was defined as symptomatic upper extremity deep vein thromboembolism or pulmonary embolism that was radiographically confirmed after the placement of a PICC or within one week of device removal. Catheter occlusion was captured when documented or when tPA was administered for problems related to the PICC. The appropriateness of the number of PICC lumens was independently adjudicated by an attending physician and clinical pharmacist by comparing the indications of the device placed against predefined appropriateness criteria.

Outcomes

The primary outcome of interest was the change in the proportion of single-lumen PICCs placed. Secondary outcomes included (1) the placement of PICCs with an appropriate number of lumens, (2) the occurrence of PICC-related complications (CLABSI, venous thrombosis, and catheter occlusion), and (3) the need for a second procedure to place a multilumen device or additional vascular access.

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used to tabulate and summarize patient and PICC characteristics. Differences between pre- and postintervention populations were assessed using χ², Fishers exact, t-, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Differences in complications were assessed using the two-sample tests of proportions. Results were reported as medians (IQR) and percentages with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. All statistical tests were two-sided, with P < .05 considered statistically significant. Analyses were conducted with Stata v.14 (stataCorp, College Station, Texas).

Ethical and Regulatory Oversight

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the University of Michigan (IRB#HUM00118168).

Of the 133 PICCs placed preintervention, 64.7% (n = 86) were single lumen, 33.1% (n = 44) were double lumen, and 2.3% (n = 3) were triple lumen. Compared with the preintervention period, the use of single-lumen PICCs significantly increased following the intervention (64.7% to 93.6%; P < .001; Figure 1). As well, the proportion of PICCs with an inappropriate number of lumens decreased from 25.6% to 2.2% (P < .001; Table 1).

Preintervention, 14.3% (95% CI = 8.34-20.23) of the patients with PICCs experienced at least one complication (n = 19). Following the intervention, 15.1% (95% CI = 7.79-22.32) of the 93 patients with PICCs experienced at least one complication (absolute difference = 0.8%, P = .872). With respect to individual complications, CLABSI decreased from 5.3% (n = 7; 95% CI = 1.47-9.06) to 2.2% (n = 2; 95% CI = −0.80-5.10) (P = .239). Similarly, the incidence of catheter occlusion decreased from 8.3% (n = 11; 95% CI = 3.59-12.95) to 6.5% (n = 6; 95% CI = 1.46-11.44; P = .610; Table). Notably, only 12.1% (n = 21) of patients with a single-lumen PICC experienced any complication, whereas 20.0% (n = 10) of patients with a double lumen, and 66.7% (n = 2) with a triple lumen experienced a PICC-associated complication (P = .022). Patients with triple lumens had a significantly higher incidence of catheter occlusion compared with patients that received double- and single-lumen PICCs (66.7% vs. 12.0% and 5.2%, respectively; P = .003).

No patient who received a single-lumen device required a second procedure for the placement of a device with additional lumens. Similarly, no documentation suggesting an insufficient number of PICC lumens or the need for additional vascular access (eg, placement of additional PICCs) was found in medical records of patients postintervention. Pharmacists supporting the interventions and VAST team members reported no disagreements when discussing number of lumens or appropriateness of catheter choice.

In this single center, pre–post quasi-experimental study, a multimodal intervention based on the MAGIC criteria significantly reduced the use of multilumen PICCs. Additionally, a trend toward reductions in complications, including CLABSI and catheter occlusion, was also observed. Notably, these changes in ordering practices did not lead to requests for additional devices or replacement with a multilumen PICC when a single-lumen device was inserted. Collectively, our findings suggest that the use of single-lumen devices in a large direct care service can be feasibly and safely increased through this approach. Larger scale studies that implement MAGIC to inform placement of multilumen PICCs and reduce PICC-related complications now appear necessary.

Disclosures

The authors have nothing to disclose.

From Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare (Ms. Fedel), Aspirus (Ms. Hackbarth), and Aurora Health Care (Mr. Malsch and Ms. Pagel).

Abstract

• Background: There is a nationwide shortage of geriatric prepared providers. Caring for complex older adults is challenging.
• Objective: To develop an efficient and affordable way to educate members of the interdisciplinary team involved in the care of geriatric patients.
• Methods: A team from 3 area health systems developed a plan to present monthly case studies via teleconference. Cases are presented by a direct caregiver using the Wisconsin Star Method to facilitate analysis of the case. A geriatric expert and another member of the team presents teaching points, and questions are elicited and discussed.
• Results: The team has completed 18 consecutive monthly teleconferences. Participant satisfaction has been favorable. Participation on the call has increased approximately 300% since the initiation of the program.
• Conclusion: The case teleconference provides an accessible and affordable educational forum that provides learners an opportunity to improve their knowledge in care of older adults.

The number of older adults in the United States will nearly double between 2005 and 2030 [1] as the baby boom generation begins turning 65 and as life expectancy for older Americans increases. The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) landmark report Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce states that “unless action is taken immediately, the health care workforce will lack the capacity (in both size and ability) to meet the needs of older patients in the future [1].” One of their recommendations is to explore ways to widen the duties and responsibilities of workers at various levels of training. More health care providers need to be trained in the basics of geriatric care and should be capable of caring for older patients.

Team-based care is becoming more prevalent. Care delivered by interdisciplinary teams have been shown to improve patient outcomes [2]. A team led by one of the authors (PF) developed an intervention to increase the geriatric and teamwork competencies of interdisciplinary teams who serve patients throughout Wisconsin. The Interdisciplinary Geriatric Difficult Case Conference Call (IGDCC) is sponsored monthly by 3 Wisconsin health systems. The purpose is to provide opportunities to discuss clinical cases, to learn from one another and from experts, and to elevate the level of geriatric care in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and beyond. Each month a difficult case is presented by a clinician involved in that patient’s care. Time is allotted for participants to ask questions, and teaching points are shared by a clinical expert to highlight concepts and provide additional context. The IGDCC is meant to be a joint learning exercise to explore a specific difficult patient situation and learn skills and knowledge to improve care and transitions for older adults. The conference call is not a critique of the care, but rather an opportunity to jointly learn from the challenging situations all experience.

Background

The IGDCC was created by four members of 3 health systems in Wisconsin: Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, Aspirus, and Aurora Health Care. The health systems serve and partially overlap on a broad geographic and demographic area of Wisconsin. The 4 members collaborated on numerous projects in the past, including Nurses Improving Case for Health System Elders (NICHE) implementation [3]. A common concern among the team is the management of challenging geriatric clinical patients and having a prepared workforce to meet those challenges.

Problem/Issue

As mentioned above, the older adult population is increasing, and these statistics are reflected in our service area [4]. Exacerbating these demographic changes is a shortage of health care workers in all disciplines, inadequate geriatric training, and the increased prevalence of multiple chronic conditions. Older adults also have higher rates of 30-day readmissions as well as higher rates of functional decline and medical errors during hospital stays [5,6]. Effective interprofessional teamwork is essential for the delivery of high-quality patient care in an increasingly complex health environment [7]. The IOM’s Future of Nursing report recommends that nurses, who represent the largest segment of the US health workforce, should achieve higher levels of training and be full partners in redesigning health care [8]. Unfortunately, effective care is hampered by poor coordination, limited communication, boundary infringement, and lack of understanding of roles [9]. Meta-analyses have demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between team training interventions and outcomes [10,11].

Objectives

The objective of the IGDCC is to elevate the level of geriatric care in the region by providing an accessible and affordable forum for the education of health care workers involved in the care of our most vulnerable population. To meet this challenge, the 4 founding members of IGDCC utilized the Aurora Health Care Geriatric Fellow’s Most Difficult Case (GFMCC) conference format as a model [12,13]. All disciplines are encouraged to participate, with announcements sent out via the leadership at the participating hospital systems. Participants have the option to call into the conference and teleconference via their own personal telephone and computer; in addition, each participating hospital system frequently hosts an open forum teleconference room where participants also may join a group.

Conference Components

The team uses the Wisconsin Star Method framework for presentation and discussion of the case. The Star Method, developed by Timothy Howell, enables clinical data about a person to be mapped out onto a single field with 5 domains: medications, medical, behavioral, personal, and social [14], creating a visual representation of the complicated and interacting physical, emotional, and social issues of older adults (Figure). By becoming comfortable using this method, the learner can use a similar approach in their clinical practice to address the needs of the patient in a holistic manner.

The case call concludes with expert teaching points from both a geriatric expert and a member of the interdisciplinary team. The interdisciplinary team member is chosen based on the key issues raised by the case. For example, cases that are made complex due to polypharmacy and adverse drug reactions might have a pharmacist presenting pertinent take-home message for the learner. In addition, geriatric teaching experts (ie, a geriatrician or advanced practice geriatric nursing specialist) provide the learner with insights that they can apply to their future practice. Often times the teaching points consist of an analysis of the various geriatric syndromes and how they can be managed in the complex older adult.

Implementation

Implementation of the IGDCC is coordinated by an oversight team with representation from each of the 3 sponsoring health systems. The oversight team currently includes 4 members: 3 geriatric clinical nurse specialists and a geriatric service line administrator. The team is responsible for:

• Planning the conference call schedule
• Making arrangements for case presenters and experts to contribute teaching points
• Registering participants and sharing written materials with participants
• Publicizing and encouraging attendance
• Soliciting feedback for continual improvement
• Exploring and implementing new ways to maximize learning.

Team members share duties and rotate case presentations. The Aurora and Wheaton Franciscan systems provide the geriatric specialists who provide the expert teaching points. The Aspirus system provides the conference line and webinar application and supports publicity and evaluations. All 3 systems are supported by a geriatric clinical nurse specialist who identifies and helps prepare presenters, case presentations, and call participants. Over time, the conference call format has evolved into a webinar format, allowing participants to either phone into the call for audio only or participate via both audio and visual. The visual allows participants to watch on their computer screens while the case is presented using the Star Method. During the call, a member of the oversight team adds clinical details by typing into a Word template of a blank star, adding information for each of the 5 domains in real-time as the case is discussed. Another member of the team facilitates the call, introducing presenters and experts, describing the Star Method, and offering “housekeeping” announcements. The facilitator also watches the timing to make certain the agenda is followed and the call begins and ends on time. During the call, another member of the team updates the attendance spreadsheet and makes a recording of each session.

Some participating facilities reserve a meeting room and project the webinar onto a screen for shared viewing. One of the participating sites has done this quite successfully with a growing group of participants coming together to watch the case during their lunch hour. This allows an opportunity for group discussion—when the conference call is on “mute” so as not to disrupt learners at other locations.

Measurement/Analysis

Attendance has steadily increased. In CY2015 from January to September, the mean attendance per month was 29.1 (mode, 17). The maximum per month was 62 (September 2015). The program enjoyed a boost in attendance beginning in July 2015 when Nurses Improving Care of Healthsystem Elders (NICHE) [3] began promoting the call-in opportunity to its NICHE Coordinators at member health systems. In June 2015, the technology was improved to allow for recorded sessions, and the recordings are growing in popularity from 2 listeners per month in July 2014 to 23 listeners per month in September 2015.

Lessons Learned

In comparing the IGDCC with similar conference call educational offerings, the team found that the program was unique in 2 areas. First, in addition to having a rich discussion in the care of frail older adults with experts in the field, the team also sought to help our staff learn how to present a difficult case to their peers. Three of our 4 committee members are geriatric clinical nurse specialists (a fourth is a clinical nurse specialist from Aspirus who assists periodically) who have been able to mentor, guide, and encourage interdisciplinary team members to present a challenging case. Many presenters had never presented a difficult case in this format. Presenters found the process fun and rewarding and have offered to present cases again in the future.

A second unique feature was utilizing the Wisconsin Star Method rather than focusing on a typical medical model framework for discussing a challenging case. The Star Method allows participants to increase their proficiency in providing comprehensive care while being more confident and mindful in addressing the complicated interacting physical, emotional and social issues of older adults [13].

A monthly post-call debriefing with committee members to review the strengths and weakness of the call was key to growing the program. The committee was able to critically review the process of the call, review participant surveys and discuss next steps. Adding a webinar approach, automatic email notification of calls, participant electronic survey, recording the call, and the addition of offering contact hours were some of the action items that were a result of monthly debriefing calls.

The team also found the 3-system collaboration to be beneficial. Aspirus has a large rural population, and Wheaton and Aurora have a diverse population, and each adds to the participant’s experience. Each IGDCC was rotated between the systems, which did not put the burden on any one health system. An annual call assignment listing was maintained for noting which system was responsible for the case each month and whether the geriatric expert was assigned/confirmed. Identifying the committee’s individual and collective group expertise was helpful in the overall project planning. The committee also developed a standard presenter guide and template and an expert teaching guide so the monthly IGDCC were consistent.

Challenges

The committee did not have a budget. Participation on the committee was in-kind funding from each system. Aspirus used its electronic system in place at the time to support the project. Interactive conference call education platform can be challenging with multiple participants on an open line who may not mute their phone. Often times, when a group of participants are calling in from one phone line it is difficult to know how many people are attending the IGDCC. It can be challenging at times to facilitate the call during the discussion component as participants occasionally talk over each other.

Current Status/Future Directions

The team has completed 18 consecutive monthly IGDCCs. Our participation rate has tripled. Participant satisfaction remains favorable. The team is now offering 1 contact hour to participants, and our invitations to participate have been extended to national health care groups. Challenging cases will be presented from community sources outside the hospital. Focusing attention on elevating the level of geriatric care in our region using a community educational approach will give us new opportunities for collaborating on best practice in multiple settings across the care continuum.

Acknowledgment: The planning team acknowledges Evalyn Michira, MSN, RN, PHN, AGCNS-BC, for her assistance in call presentations.

Corresponding author: Margie Hackbarth, MBA, [email protected].

Financial disclosures: none.

From Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare (Ms. Fedel), Aspirus (Ms. Hackbarth), and Aurora Health Care (Mr. Malsch and Ms. Pagel).

Abstract

• Background: There is a nationwide shortage of geriatric prepared providers. Caring for complex older adults is challenging.
• Objective: To develop an efficient and affordable way to educate members of the interdisciplinary team involved in the care of geriatric patients.
• Methods: A team from 3 area health systems developed a plan to present monthly case studies via teleconference. Cases are presented by a direct caregiver using the Wisconsin Star Method to facilitate analysis of the case. A geriatric expert and another member of the team presents teaching points, and questions are elicited and discussed.
• Results: The team has completed 18 consecutive monthly teleconferences. Participant satisfaction has been favorable. Participation on the call has increased approximately 300% since the initiation of the program.
• Conclusion: The case teleconference provides an accessible and affordable educational forum that provides learners an opportunity to improve their knowledge in care of older adults.

The number of older adults in the United States will nearly double between 2005 and 2030 [1] as the baby boom generation begins turning 65 and as life expectancy for older Americans increases. The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) landmark report Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce states that “unless action is taken immediately, the health care workforce will lack the capacity (in both size and ability) to meet the needs of older patients in the future [1].” One of their recommendations is to explore ways to widen the duties and responsibilities of workers at various levels of training. More health care providers need to be trained in the basics of geriatric care and should be capable of caring for older patients.

Team-based care is becoming more prevalent. Care delivered by interdisciplinary teams have been shown to improve patient outcomes [2]. A team led by one of the authors (PF) developed an intervention to increase the geriatric and teamwork competencies of interdisciplinary teams who serve patients throughout Wisconsin. The Interdisciplinary Geriatric Difficult Case Conference Call (IGDCC) is sponsored monthly by 3 Wisconsin health systems. The purpose is to provide opportunities to discuss clinical cases, to learn from one another and from experts, and to elevate the level of geriatric care in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and beyond. Each month a difficult case is presented by a clinician involved in that patient’s care. Time is allotted for participants to ask questions, and teaching points are shared by a clinical expert to highlight concepts and provide additional context. The IGDCC is meant to be a joint learning exercise to explore a specific difficult patient situation and learn skills and knowledge to improve care and transitions for older adults. The conference call is not a critique of the care, but rather an opportunity to jointly learn from the challenging situations all experience.

Background

The IGDCC was created by four members of 3 health systems in Wisconsin: Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, Aspirus, and Aurora Health Care. The health systems serve and partially overlap on a broad geographic and demographic area of Wisconsin. The 4 members collaborated on numerous projects in the past, including Nurses Improving Case for Health System Elders (NICHE) implementation [3]. A common concern among the team is the management of challenging geriatric clinical patients and having a prepared workforce to meet those challenges.

Problem/Issue

As mentioned above, the older adult population is increasing, and these statistics are reflected in our service area [4]. Exacerbating these demographic changes is a shortage of health care workers in all disciplines, inadequate geriatric training, and the increased prevalence of multiple chronic conditions. Older adults also have higher rates of 30-day readmissions as well as higher rates of functional decline and medical errors during hospital stays [5,6]. Effective interprofessional teamwork is essential for the delivery of high-quality patient care in an increasingly complex health environment [7]. The IOM’s Future of Nursing report recommends that nurses, who represent the largest segment of the US health workforce, should achieve higher levels of training and be full partners in redesigning health care [8]. Unfortunately, effective care is hampered by poor coordination, limited communication, boundary infringement, and lack of understanding of roles [9]. Meta-analyses have demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between team training interventions and outcomes [10,11].

Objectives

The objective of the IGDCC is to elevate the level of geriatric care in the region by providing an accessible and affordable forum for the education of health care workers involved in the care of our most vulnerable population. To meet this challenge, the 4 founding members of IGDCC utilized the Aurora Health Care Geriatric Fellow’s Most Difficult Case (GFMCC) conference format as a model [12,13]. All disciplines are encouraged to participate, with announcements sent out via the leadership at the participating hospital systems. Participants have the option to call into the conference and teleconference via their own personal telephone and computer; in addition, each participating hospital system frequently hosts an open forum teleconference room where participants also may join a group.

Conference Components

The team uses the Wisconsin Star Method framework for presentation and discussion of the case. The Star Method, developed by Timothy Howell, enables clinical data about a person to be mapped out onto a single field with 5 domains: medications, medical, behavioral, personal, and social [14], creating a visual representation of the complicated and interacting physical, emotional, and social issues of older adults (Figure). By becoming comfortable using this method, the learner can use a similar approach in their clinical practice to address the needs of the patient in a holistic manner.

The case call concludes with expert teaching points from both a geriatric expert and a member of the interdisciplinary team. The interdisciplinary team member is chosen based on the key issues raised by the case. For example, cases that are made complex due to polypharmacy and adverse drug reactions might have a pharmacist presenting pertinent take-home message for the learner. In addition, geriatric teaching experts (ie, a geriatrician or advanced practice geriatric nursing specialist) provide the learner with insights that they can apply to their future practice. Often times the teaching points consist of an analysis of the various geriatric syndromes and how they can be managed in the complex older adult.

Implementation

Implementation of the IGDCC is coordinated by an oversight team with representation from each of the 3 sponsoring health systems. The oversight team currently includes 4 members: 3 geriatric clinical nurse specialists and a geriatric service line administrator. The team is responsible for:

• Planning the conference call schedule
• Making arrangements for case presenters and experts to contribute teaching points
• Registering participants and sharing written materials with participants
• Publicizing and encouraging attendance
• Soliciting feedback for continual improvement
• Exploring and implementing new ways to maximize learning.

Team members share duties and rotate case presentations. The Aurora and Wheaton Franciscan systems provide the geriatric specialists who provide the expert teaching points. The Aspirus system provides the conference line and webinar application and supports publicity and evaluations. All 3 systems are supported by a geriatric clinical nurse specialist who identifies and helps prepare presenters, case presentations, and call participants. Over time, the conference call format has evolved into a webinar format, allowing participants to either phone into the call for audio only or participate via both audio and visual. The visual allows participants to watch on their computer screens while the case is presented using the Star Method. During the call, a member of the oversight team adds clinical details by typing into a Word template of a blank star, adding information for each of the 5 domains in real-time as the case is discussed. Another member of the team facilitates the call, introducing presenters and experts, describing the Star Method, and offering “housekeeping” announcements. The facilitator also watches the timing to make certain the agenda is followed and the call begins and ends on time. During the call, another member of the team updates the attendance spreadsheet and makes a recording of each session.

Some participating facilities reserve a meeting room and project the webinar onto a screen for shared viewing. One of the participating sites has done this quite successfully with a growing group of participants coming together to watch the case during their lunch hour. This allows an opportunity for group discussion—when the conference call is on “mute” so as not to disrupt learners at other locations.

Measurement/Analysis

Attendance has steadily increased. In CY2015 from January to September, the mean attendance per month was 29.1 (mode, 17). The maximum per month was 62 (September 2015). The program enjoyed a boost in attendance beginning in July 2015 when Nurses Improving Care of Healthsystem Elders (NICHE) [3] began promoting the call-in opportunity to its NICHE Coordinators at member health systems. In June 2015, the technology was improved to allow for recorded sessions, and the recordings are growing in popularity from 2 listeners per month in July 2014 to 23 listeners per month in September 2015.

Lessons Learned

In comparing the IGDCC with similar conference call educational offerings, the team found that the program was unique in 2 areas. First, in addition to having a rich discussion in the care of frail older adults with experts in the field, the team also sought to help our staff learn how to present a difficult case to their peers. Three of our 4 committee members are geriatric clinical nurse specialists (a fourth is a clinical nurse specialist from Aspirus who assists periodically) who have been able to mentor, guide, and encourage interdisciplinary team members to present a challenging case. Many presenters had never presented a difficult case in this format. Presenters found the process fun and rewarding and have offered to present cases again in the future.

A second unique feature was utilizing the Wisconsin Star Method rather than focusing on a typical medical model framework for discussing a challenging case. The Star Method allows participants to increase their proficiency in providing comprehensive care while being more confident and mindful in addressing the complicated interacting physical, emotional and social issues of older adults [13].

A monthly post-call debriefing with committee members to review the strengths and weakness of the call was key to growing the program. The committee was able to critically review the process of the call, review participant surveys and discuss next steps. Adding a webinar approach, automatic email notification of calls, participant electronic survey, recording the call, and the addition of offering contact hours were some of the action items that were a result of monthly debriefing calls.

The team also found the 3-system collaboration to be beneficial. Aspirus has a large rural population, and Wheaton and Aurora have a diverse population, and each adds to the participant’s experience. Each IGDCC was rotated between the systems, which did not put the burden on any one health system. An annual call assignment listing was maintained for noting which system was responsible for the case each month and whether the geriatric expert was assigned/confirmed. Identifying the committee’s individual and collective group expertise was helpful in the overall project planning. The committee also developed a standard presenter guide and template and an expert teaching guide so the monthly IGDCC were consistent.

Challenges

The committee did not have a budget. Participation on the committee was in-kind funding from each system. Aspirus used its electronic system in place at the time to support the project. Interactive conference call education platform can be challenging with multiple participants on an open line who may not mute their phone. Often times, when a group of participants are calling in from one phone line it is difficult to know how many people are attending the IGDCC. It can be challenging at times to facilitate the call during the discussion component as participants occasionally talk over each other.

Current Status/Future Directions

The team has completed 18 consecutive monthly IGDCCs. Our participation rate has tripled. Participant satisfaction remains favorable. The team is now offering 1 contact hour to participants, and our invitations to participate have been extended to national health care groups. Challenging cases will be presented from community sources outside the hospital. Focusing attention on elevating the level of geriatric care in our region using a community educational approach will give us new opportunities for collaborating on best practice in multiple settings across the care continuum.

Acknowledgment: The planning team acknowledges Evalyn Michira, MSN, RN, PHN, AGCNS-BC, for her assistance in call presentations.

Corresponding author: Margie Hackbarth, MBA, [email protected].

Financial disclosures: none.

From Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare (Ms. Fedel), Aspirus (Ms. Hackbarth), and Aurora Health Care (Mr. Malsch and Ms. Pagel).

Abstract

• Background: There is a nationwide shortage of geriatric prepared providers. Caring for complex older adults is challenging.
• Objective: To develop an efficient and affordable way to educate members of the interdisciplinary team involved in the care of geriatric patients.
• Methods: A team from 3 area health systems developed a plan to present monthly case studies via teleconference. Cases are presented by a direct caregiver using the Wisconsin Star Method to facilitate analysis of the case. A geriatric expert and another member of the team presents teaching points, and questions are elicited and discussed.
• Results: The team has completed 18 consecutive monthly teleconferences. Participant satisfaction has been favorable. Participation on the call has increased approximately 300% since the initiation of the program.
• Conclusion: The case teleconference provides an accessible and affordable educational forum that provides learners an opportunity to improve their knowledge in care of older adults.

The number of older adults in the United States will nearly double between 2005 and 2030 [1] as the baby boom generation begins turning 65 and as life expectancy for older Americans increases. The Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) landmark report Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Health Care Workforce states that “unless action is taken immediately, the health care workforce will lack the capacity (in both size and ability) to meet the needs of older patients in the future [1].” One of their recommendations is to explore ways to widen the duties and responsibilities of workers at various levels of training. More health care providers need to be trained in the basics of geriatric care and should be capable of caring for older patients.

Team-based care is becoming more prevalent. Care delivered by interdisciplinary teams have been shown to improve patient outcomes [2]. A team led by one of the authors (PF) developed an intervention to increase the geriatric and teamwork competencies of interdisciplinary teams who serve patients throughout Wisconsin. The Interdisciplinary Geriatric Difficult Case Conference Call (IGDCC) is sponsored monthly by 3 Wisconsin health systems. The purpose is to provide opportunities to discuss clinical cases, to learn from one another and from experts, and to elevate the level of geriatric care in the states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and beyond. Each month a difficult case is presented by a clinician involved in that patient’s care. Time is allotted for participants to ask questions, and teaching points are shared by a clinical expert to highlight concepts and provide additional context. The IGDCC is meant to be a joint learning exercise to explore a specific difficult patient situation and learn skills and knowledge to improve care and transitions for older adults. The conference call is not a critique of the care, but rather an opportunity to jointly learn from the challenging situations all experience.

Background

The IGDCC was created by four members of 3 health systems in Wisconsin: Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, Aspirus, and Aurora Health Care. The health systems serve and partially overlap on a broad geographic and demographic area of Wisconsin. The 4 members collaborated on numerous projects in the past, including Nurses Improving Case for Health System Elders (NICHE) implementation [3]. A common concern among the team is the management of challenging geriatric clinical patients and having a prepared workforce to meet those challenges.

Problem/Issue

As mentioned above, the older adult population is increasing, and these statistics are reflected in our service area [4]. Exacerbating these demographic changes is a shortage of health care workers in all disciplines, inadequate geriatric training, and the increased prevalence of multiple chronic conditions. Older adults also have higher rates of 30-day readmissions as well as higher rates of functional decline and medical errors during hospital stays [5,6]. Effective interprofessional teamwork is essential for the delivery of high-quality patient care in an increasingly complex health environment [7]. The IOM’s Future of Nursing report recommends that nurses, who represent the largest segment of the US health workforce, should achieve higher levels of training and be full partners in redesigning health care [8]. Unfortunately, effective care is hampered by poor coordination, limited communication, boundary infringement, and lack of understanding of roles [9]. Meta-analyses have demonstrated that there is a positive relationship between team training interventions and outcomes [10,11].

Objectives

The objective of the IGDCC is to elevate the level of geriatric care in the region by providing an accessible and affordable forum for the education of health care workers involved in the care of our most vulnerable population. To meet this challenge, the 4 founding members of IGDCC utilized the Aurora Health Care Geriatric Fellow’s Most Difficult Case (GFMCC) conference format as a model [12,13]. All disciplines are encouraged to participate, with announcements sent out via the leadership at the participating hospital systems. Participants have the option to call into the conference and teleconference via their own personal telephone and computer; in addition, each participating hospital system frequently hosts an open forum teleconference room where participants also may join a group.

Conference Components

The team uses the Wisconsin Star Method framework for presentation and discussion of the case. The Star Method, developed by Timothy Howell, enables clinical data about a person to be mapped out onto a single field with 5 domains: medications, medical, behavioral, personal, and social [14], creating a visual representation of the complicated and interacting physical, emotional, and social issues of older adults (Figure). By becoming comfortable using this method, the learner can use a similar approach in their clinical practice to address the needs of the patient in a holistic manner.

The case call concludes with expert teaching points from both a geriatric expert and a member of the interdisciplinary team. The interdisciplinary team member is chosen based on the key issues raised by the case. For example, cases that are made complex due to polypharmacy and adverse drug reactions might have a pharmacist presenting pertinent take-home message for the learner. In addition, geriatric teaching experts (ie, a geriatrician or advanced practice geriatric nursing specialist) provide the learner with insights that they can apply to their future practice. Often times the teaching points consist of an analysis of the various geriatric syndromes and how they can be managed in the complex older adult.

Implementation

Implementation of the IGDCC is coordinated by an oversight team with representation from each of the 3 sponsoring health systems. The oversight team currently includes 4 members: 3 geriatric clinical nurse specialists and a geriatric service line administrator. The team is responsible for:

• Planning the conference call schedule
• Making arrangements for case presenters and experts to contribute teaching points
• Registering participants and sharing written materials with participants
• Publicizing and encouraging attendance
• Soliciting feedback for continual improvement
• Exploring and implementing new ways to maximize learning.

Team members share duties and rotate case presentations. The Aurora and Wheaton Franciscan systems provide the geriatric specialists who provide the expert teaching points. The Aspirus system provides the conference line and webinar application and supports publicity and evaluations. All 3 systems are supported by a geriatric clinical nurse specialist who identifies and helps prepare presenters, case presentations, and call participants. Over time, the conference call format has evolved into a webinar format, allowing participants to either phone into the call for audio only or participate via both audio and visual. The visual allows participants to watch on their computer screens while the case is presented using the Star Method. During the call, a member of the oversight team adds clinical details by typing into a Word template of a blank star, adding information for each of the 5 domains in real-time as the case is discussed. Another member of the team facilitates the call, introducing presenters and experts, describing the Star Method, and offering “housekeeping” announcements. The facilitator also watches the timing to make certain the agenda is followed and the call begins and ends on time. During the call, another member of the team updates the attendance spreadsheet and makes a recording of each session.

Some participating facilities reserve a meeting room and project the webinar onto a screen for shared viewing. One of the participating sites has done this quite successfully with a growing group of participants coming together to watch the case during their lunch hour. This allows an opportunity for group discussion—when the conference call is on “mute” so as not to disrupt learners at other locations.

Measurement/Analysis

Attendance has steadily increased. In CY2015 from January to September, the mean attendance per month was 29.1 (mode, 17). The maximum per month was 62 (September 2015). The program enjoyed a boost in attendance beginning in July 2015 when Nurses Improving Care of Healthsystem Elders (NICHE) [3] began promoting the call-in opportunity to its NICHE Coordinators at member health systems. In June 2015, the technology was improved to allow for recorded sessions, and the recordings are growing in popularity from 2 listeners per month in July 2014 to 23 listeners per month in September 2015.

Lessons Learned

In comparing the IGDCC with similar conference call educational offerings, the team found that the program was unique in 2 areas. First, in addition to having a rich discussion in the care of frail older adults with experts in the field, the team also sought to help our staff learn how to present a difficult case to their peers. Three of our 4 committee members are geriatric clinical nurse specialists (a fourth is a clinical nurse specialist from Aspirus who assists periodically) who have been able to mentor, guide, and encourage interdisciplinary team members to present a challenging case. Many presenters had never presented a difficult case in this format. Presenters found the process fun and rewarding and have offered to present cases again in the future.

A second unique feature was utilizing the Wisconsin Star Method rather than focusing on a typical medical model framework for discussing a challenging case. The Star Method allows participants to increase their proficiency in providing comprehensive care while being more confident and mindful in addressing the complicated interacting physical, emotional and social issues of older adults [13].

A monthly post-call debriefing with committee members to review the strengths and weakness of the call was key to growing the program. The committee was able to critically review the process of the call, review participant surveys and discuss next steps. Adding a webinar approach, automatic email notification of calls, participant electronic survey, recording the call, and the addition of offering contact hours were some of the action items that were a result of monthly debriefing calls.

The team also found the 3-system collaboration to be beneficial. Aspirus has a large rural population, and Wheaton and Aurora have a diverse population, and each adds to the participant’s experience. Each IGDCC was rotated between the systems, which did not put the burden on any one health system. An annual call assignment listing was maintained for noting which system was responsible for the case each month and whether the geriatric expert was assigned/confirmed. Identifying the committee’s individual and collective group expertise was helpful in the overall project planning. The committee also developed a standard presenter guide and template and an expert teaching guide so the monthly IGDCC were consistent.

Challenges

The committee did not have a budget. Participation on the committee was in-kind funding from each system. Aspirus used its electronic system in place at the time to support the project. Interactive conference call education platform can be challenging with multiple participants on an open line who may not mute their phone. Often times, when a group of participants are calling in from one phone line it is difficult to know how many people are attending the IGDCC. It can be challenging at times to facilitate the call during the discussion component as participants occasionally talk over each other.

Current Status/Future Directions

The team has completed 18 consecutive monthly IGDCCs. Our participation rate has tripled. Participant satisfaction remains favorable. The team is now offering 1 contact hour to participants, and our invitations to participate have been extended to national health care groups. Challenging cases will be presented from community sources outside the hospital. Focusing attention on elevating the level of geriatric care in our region using a community educational approach will give us new opportunities for collaborating on best practice in multiple settings across the care continuum.

Acknowledgment: The planning team acknowledges Evalyn Michira, MSN, RN, PHN, AGCNS-BC, for her assistance in call presentations.

Corresponding author: Margie Hackbarth, MBA, [email protected].

Financial disclosures: none.

From the MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH.

Abstract

• Objective: To describe risk factors for unplanned extubation (UE) among critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation and to identify strategies to reduce the occurrence of this adverse event.
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Inadvertent removal of an endotracheal tube, or a UE, occurs in 7% to 22.5% of mechanically ventilated adult patients and is often due to deliberate patient removal. Despite the multitude of research examining risk factors and predictors of UE, rates have remained unchanged for the past 2 decades. Risk factors can be classified by intensive care unit (ICU) type, including medical ICUs, surgical ICUs, and mixed medical-surgical ICUs. The majority of risk factors for UEs across ICUs may be amenable to changes in unit processes, such as programs for agitation management, use of weaning protocols, increased surveillance of patients, and ongoing education for patients and health care staff.
• Conclusion: Prevention of UE remains an elusive target. Changes in unit processes that target identified risk factors may be an effective method to decrease prevalence of UE.

Unplanned extubation (UE) is the inadvertent removal of an endotracheal tube, either by a patient (deliberate self-extubation), or by a member of the health care team providing routine care such as repositioning, suctioning, or procedures (accidental extubation). Approximately 7% to 22.5% of mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience UE [1–7]. Estimates are likely higher, as current regulatory and accreditation standards do not include mandatory reporting of this event. Despite numerous studies investigating risk factors associated with UE, it remains a prevalent problem with adverse outcomes for patients and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the literature on risk factors for UE, review effects on patient and organizational outcomes, and identify evidence-based strategies for reducing occurrence of UE among mechanically ventilated patients.

Prevalence of Unplanned Exubation

There is substantial heterogeneity in how UE is calculated and reported in the research literature. UE is calculated as the number of UE events per 100 or 1000 patient days, or the number of UE per total ventilator days. Rates of UE are also reported as the proportion of patients who experience UE out of all intubated patients over a set time period [8]. Despite efforts aimed at mitigating risk factors for UE, rates have remained static over the past 2 decades. Reported UE rates from 1994–2002 were 2.6% to 14% [3,6,9–11], while rates from 2004–2014 ranged from 1% to 22% [3–5,8,12–15]. Interventions utilizing a multidisciplinary approach have been implemented with the aim of decreasing UE, yet few have proven successful on improving rates nationally.

Unplanned self-extubation by the patient (deliberate self-extubation) is the most common type of UE [3,10,12,16–18]. A multicenter trial of 426 patients from 11 medical centers indicates that 46 patients experienced UE, with 36 of these (78.2%) caused by patient self-extubation [6]. Prospective single-site studies report similar or higher estimates of patient self-extubation, ranging from 75.8% to 91.7% [3,5], while a multisite study of 10,112 patients revealed 32 of 35 UE (91.4%) were due to patient self-extubation [12]. Similarly, a 4-year analysis of 85 UEs reported 82 incidences (96.5%) were a result of deliberate patient removal [13]. Patients either physically pull out the endotracheal tube or use their tongue or coughing/gagging maneuvers to displace or intentionally remove the endotracheal tube [5]. Only 3% to 8% of UEs are caused by inadvertent removal by health care staff [3,5,12,13].

Effects on Patient and Organizational Outcomes

Regardless of the cause of the UE, there are adverse consequences for both patients and hospitals. Some patients who experience UE have higher rates of in-hospital mortality; however, this is often due to contributing factors associated with severity of injury, the need for reintubation, and underlying chronic diseases [13]. Patients who experience accidental UE have higher incidence of nosocomial pneumonia (27.6% vs. 138%, P = 0.002) [11], longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and increased length of stay (LOS) [7,13]. While some studies report UE can result in serious consequences such as respiratory distress, hypoxia [13], and even death [6,12], others report lower mortality and length of stay when UE occurs, likely due to the fact that many patients are ready for liberation from mechanical ventilation at the time of UE [5,15].

Despite the emergent nature of UE, not all patients experience immediate reintubation. Many instances of UE occur during patient weaning trials or in preparation for planned extubations [5,11], which explains why only 10% to 60% of patients require reintubation [3,5,10,11,15,19,20]. When reintubation is necessary, it results in increased number of ventilator days [10,11], and increased ICU and hospital LOS [1,11]. There is little evidence directly linking reintubation with in-hospital mortality; however, it can cause serious complications such as hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmias, and airway trauma [21]. For hospitals and health care organizations, the need for reintubation results in increased hospital costs, estimated to be $1000 per reintubation event [17,22]. This estimate does not take into account additional costs incurred with increased ICU care, longer periods of mechanical ventilation, and increased LOS. Estimates of these additional costs in pediatric patients are approximately $36,000 [23]. Costs are likely higher in adult patients, due to multiple comorbidities that often accompany the need for mechanical ventilation, as well as increased pharmacy, lab, and diagnostic charges [1].

Risk Factors for Unplanned Extubation

Medical ICU Risk Factors

MICUs traditionally have the highest rates of UE [4,8]. Data from a national prevalence study indicated that there were 23.4 episodes of UE in MICUs per 1000 ventilator days [4]. Approximately 9.5% to 15% of all ventilated patients in the MICU experience UE [4,5,8]. Patients in the MICU who require mechanical ventilation often have complex chronic illness with underlying respiratory disease, which can result in prolonged periods of ventilation and increased risk of UE. Specific risk factors investigated in UE research include patient specific factors (age, gender, diagnosis, comorbidities, agitation, level of consciousness, laboratory values), ventilatory factors (ventilator type and setting, type of tracheal tube, method of tube fixation), as well as type of sedation and use of protocols [5,6,24]. Surprisingly, few variables emerge as significant risk factors for UE among MICU patients. Risk factors associated with UE have included male gender [24], presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [24], increased level of consciousness [25], and use of weaning protocols [5]. While gender, COPD, and level of consciousness increase risk of UE, the presence of weaning protocols is shown to decrease risk of UE [5]. Although UE are reported most often in MICUs, few risk factors consistently emerge for this specific cohort, making definitive recommendations for prevention of UE difficult.

Surgical ICU Risk Factors

The prevalence of UE for mechanically ventilated patients in the SICU tend to be lower than those for MICU cohorts. Prevalence of UE in the SICU is reported at 1.41 episodes per 100 ventilator days [13], or 6.8 episodes per 1000 ventilator days [4]. Percentages of UE in the SICU range from 2% to 6% [4,8,19]. Similar to MICU patients, critically ill patients in the SICU often have specific risk factors placing them at risk for UE. Causative factors examined in research studies with this population include gender, age, sedation scale scores, need for reintubation, time from intubation to extubation, use of sedatives/analgesics, restraints, ICU nurse experience, location of staff at time of UE, and criteria for extubation [17,19]. Similar to MICU cohorts, few variables are identified as predictors of UE. Significant predictors include use of restraints, decreased sedation [17], and meeting criteria for extubation [19]. Among patients who experienced an UE, 87% were restrained at the time of the UE [17], and most had low levels of sedation (mean Ramsay sedation scale score = 2.42 in the hour preceding the UE). Approximately 64% of patients who experienced UE met criteria for planned extubation and did not require re-intubation [19], suggesting many patients were essentially ready for planned extubation.

Mixed ICU Risk Factors

The majority of research investigating risk factors for UE is conducted within medical-surgical or mixed/general ICUs. The prevalence of UE within this type of unit is reported at 1.59 episodes per 100 patient days [6], or approximately 2% to 10% [4,6,7]. Among this population, potential risk factors are similar to those included in solely MICU or SICU studies. Because of the high number of studies investigating UE in a mixed ICU setting, there are significantly more variables included in as potential risk factors. Variables include patient age, gender, admission diagnosis, injury severity using Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), ICU and hospital LOS, patient level of consciousness, agitation, days of mechanical ventilation, ventilator settings, nosocomial infection, sedation, physical restraints, vital signs [7,14,26], laboratory values, medication types, and body mass index [15,26]. One study also included time of UE and ICU nurse level of experience [3]. Among all factors, several were significant predictors of UE: male gender [15], decreased sedation and increased level of consciousness [8], agitation [3,19,26], use of restraints [3,7], sedation practices (particularly use of benzodiazapines) [3,7,15,26,27], lack of strong tube fixation, absence of IV sedation, and orotracheal intubation [6]. UE were more likely to occur on the night shift and among staff that included nurses with fewer years of experience [3]. Many episodes of UE occurred during weaning [10] or among patients who could communicate and were alert [3]. One study reports 57% of patients who intentionally self-extubated explained they simply removed the tube because it was uncomfortable [3].

Strategies for Reducing Adverse Events

Agitation Management

The majority of studies cited agitation, altered level of consciousness, or inadequate sedation as risk factors for UE [3,6–8,15,17,18,25,26,28,29]. These factors directly impact restraint use, another common risk factor for UE [3,7,17]. A key recommendation for agitation management is to identify the source of agitation, which is often caused by delirium onset in the ICU [30–32]. Prevalence of delirium in the ICU ranges from 20% to 80% [33–35]. ICU patients are at high risk for delirium due to sleep deprivation, older age, restraints, abnormal lab values, medications, infection, and respiratory complications [31]. Treatment for delirium centers on prevention, early recognition, interdisciplinary and pharmacologic protocols, increased nursing presence, and use of short-acting sedation when necessary [30–32,36]. While there is no research specifically linking delirium to UE, a quality analysis of risk factors present at the time of UE using bow-tie analysis methods identified delirium as a key factor present in the majority of UE cases [36]. It is possible that agitation reported in other studies investigating risk factors for UE may actually be reflective of underlying delirium. Routine screening using validated tools, such as the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU) [37] would aid in early detection and management of delirium, and would provide a standardized method for exploring the relationship of delirium and UE in future trials.

Integration of Weaning Protocols

Protocol-directed weaning is beneficial for decreasing ventilator days, time to wean from mechanical ventilation, and ICU LOS [38]. A systematic review including 7 trials (2434 patients) comparing protocol/non-protocol for weaning from mechanical ventilation reported a 26% decrease in the mean duration of mechanical ventilation for the protocol groups (95% CI 13%–37%, P < 0.001), a 70% reduction in time to wean, (95% CI 27%–88%, P = 0.009), and a decrease in ICU LOS by 11% (95% CI 3%–19%, P = 0.01). Weaning protocols are also an important risk factor for UE [5]. Findings from a prospective cohort study specifically identify the presence of weaning protocols as an important factor for reducing UE; patients who had weaning protocols ordered and followed were least likely to experience UE (P = 0.02) [5]. A separate quality improvement initiative demonstrated an overall decrease in the number of UEs (from 5.2% to 0.9%) after implementing weaning protocols as standard of care [39]. Considering many UEs occur during weaning [10], integration of weaning protocols aids in expediting the process and ensuring timely extubation.

Increased Surveillance

Increasing surveillance and monitoring of ventilated patients is a recommendation based on risk factors presented at the time of UE. Specifically, staffing levels and shifts and the use of physical restraints are variables associated with UE that are amendable to changes in unit processes based on increased surveillance. It is reported that 40% to 76% of UEs occurred during the night shift [14,17,24,40]; many more occur during change of shift or when there is not a nurse present at the bedside [3,17]. Recent trends towards mandatory bedside reporting is a specific intervention that may positively impact UE among patients in the ICU [41]. Meta-analyses of observational studies investigating the effect of nurse staffing on hospital outcomes indicate that increasing the number of RNs is associated with decreased risk of adverse patient outcomes, including UE [42,43]. The addition of 1 additional nurse per patient day can result in a 51% decrease in UE, while a decrease in nursing workload could result in a 45% decrease in UE [42]. Data from a national prevalence study reports ICUs with fewer available resources, including staff, experienced a higher number of UEs [4].

Increasing surveillance by nursing and health care staff may also impact prevalence of physical restraint use. A significant number of patients who experience UE are physically restrained at the time of the incident, ranging from 40% to 90% of intubated patients [5–7,14,17,40]. It is well documented that UE continue to occur despite the use of restraints [5,7,28,29,44] Patients who are physically restrained often experience higher rates of unplanned extubation (42.9% vs. 16.5% , P < 0.001 in Chang et al’s study [7]), and longer ICU LOS (20.3 days vs. 15.8 days, P = 0.009) [7]. Soft wrist restraints are commonly used to prevent pulling of the endotracheal tube; however, research evidence on UE demonstrates this is not always an effective intervention. Increasing surveillance of ventilated patients, treating their agitation and screening for underlying delirium, and integration of weaning protocols are all interventions that may decrease UE and the need for routine use of physical restraints.

Ongoing Education for Patients and Health Care Staff

Initial and ongoing education about UE, risk factors, and effective interventions is beneficial for patients and health care staff. Although there are no trials investigating effects of educational interventions for patients on UE outcomes, pre-education of surgical patients regarding what to expect while intubated may aid in decreasing delirium risk, agitation, physical restraint use, and possibly UE. Verbal and written educational information during pre-admission testing is a feasible method easily integrated into pre-operative programs.

Because UEs often occur more frequently among less experienced staff, initial education about risk factors for UE is crucial to include in ICU staff orientation programs [3,7]. Educational initiatives should incorporate training on routine delirium screening and avoidance of agitation, use of protocols, and increased surveillance of patients receiving mechanical ventilation [5,15,17,39,45]. Ongoing education of staff regarding ventilatory equipment and risk factors for UE can be particularly effective in decreasing UE [46]. Initial educational efforts should be followed by routine updates for all members of the healthcare team about ongoing quality improvement efforts to monitor UE. Associated factors for UE that may be unit- or process-specific, including methods for endotracheal tube securement and intra-hospital transport, should be communicated with all individuals involved in patient care. Integration of continuous quality improvement programs can decrease UE rates by 22% to 53% [16]. Quality efforts typically focus on standardization of reporting and tracking tools, protocol implementations, and ongoing monitoring, auditing, and recording of UE.

Current Trends and Future Directions

Recent trends in critical care recommendations may mitigate potential risk factors identified in UE research. Integration of lightened sedation and daily wake up periods for intubated patients may decrease prevalence of risk factors for UE, specifically agitation, physical restraint use, and altered level of consciousness [30], while routine weaning protocols may improve ventilatory outcomes, including UE [5,38,40]. Nursing bedside report and purposeful hourly rounding are quickly emerging as mainstays of professional nursing care [41]. Inherent in these 2 initiatives are increased surveillance and vigilance by health care staff, which can result in timely extubation of those who indicate readiness, as well as decreased incidence of adverse events. Delirium remains a key factor that may be a likely cause for UE; recent trends towards early detection and proper management of delirium among ICU staff may result in improved ventilatory outcomes, including weaning, planned extubation, and the prevalence of UE.

Another important trend in critical care is the emergence of a neurocritical care specialty and routine admission of neurocritically ill patients to neuroscience ICUs [47,48]. However, there are no studies investigating prevalence of UE among these patients, who often have higher rates of agitation or restlessness due to cognitive impairment. Among general ICUs, patients with a primary respiratory diagnosis accounted for 23% of all UE in one study, while those with a neurological diagnosis accounted for the second highest percentage (12%) among the study population [15]. A separate study concluded that presence of neurological injury with a concomitant nosocomial infection increased risk of UE among patients in a mixed ICU [7]. A recent systematic review of weaning protocols highlights positive effects on ventilatory outcomes but cites lack of evidence for effectiveness of protocols among those with neurological injury [38]. Areas for future UE research should include factors specific to this patient population, as they may be at higher risk for adverse ventilatory outcomes due to the nature of the neurological injury.

Conclusion

Prevention of UE remains an elusive target, evidenced by little change in reported rates over 2 decades. Research provides data on risk factors that may be patient, unit, or process related. Structuring prevention efforts around modifiable risk factors for UE is a feasible approach amenable to ongoing monitoring for effectiveness. Integration of current trends in health care safety and quality may produce an added benefit of reducing the occurrence of UE in critical care units. Future research evaluating these trends and the prevalence of UE in subspecialty populations is warranted.

Corresponding author: Molly McNett, PhD, RN, CNRN, Attn: NBO, MetroHealth Medical Center, 2500 MetroHealth Drive; Cleveland, OH 44109, [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH.

Abstract

• Objective: To describe risk factors for unplanned extubation (UE) among critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation and to identify strategies to reduce the occurrence of this adverse event.
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Inadvertent removal of an endotracheal tube, or a UE, occurs in 7% to 22.5% of mechanically ventilated adult patients and is often due to deliberate patient removal. Despite the multitude of research examining risk factors and predictors of UE, rates have remained unchanged for the past 2 decades. Risk factors can be classified by intensive care unit (ICU) type, including medical ICUs, surgical ICUs, and mixed medical-surgical ICUs. The majority of risk factors for UEs across ICUs may be amenable to changes in unit processes, such as programs for agitation management, use of weaning protocols, increased surveillance of patients, and ongoing education for patients and health care staff.
• Conclusion: Prevention of UE remains an elusive target. Changes in unit processes that target identified risk factors may be an effective method to decrease prevalence of UE.

Unplanned extubation (UE) is the inadvertent removal of an endotracheal tube, either by a patient (deliberate self-extubation), or by a member of the health care team providing routine care such as repositioning, suctioning, or procedures (accidental extubation). Approximately 7% to 22.5% of mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience UE [1–7]. Estimates are likely higher, as current regulatory and accreditation standards do not include mandatory reporting of this event. Despite numerous studies investigating risk factors associated with UE, it remains a prevalent problem with adverse outcomes for patients and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the literature on risk factors for UE, review effects on patient and organizational outcomes, and identify evidence-based strategies for reducing occurrence of UE among mechanically ventilated patients.

Prevalence of Unplanned Exubation

There is substantial heterogeneity in how UE is calculated and reported in the research literature. UE is calculated as the number of UE events per 100 or 1000 patient days, or the number of UE per total ventilator days. Rates of UE are also reported as the proportion of patients who experience UE out of all intubated patients over a set time period [8]. Despite efforts aimed at mitigating risk factors for UE, rates have remained static over the past 2 decades. Reported UE rates from 1994–2002 were 2.6% to 14% [3,6,9–11], while rates from 2004–2014 ranged from 1% to 22% [3–5,8,12–15]. Interventions utilizing a multidisciplinary approach have been implemented with the aim of decreasing UE, yet few have proven successful on improving rates nationally.

Unplanned self-extubation by the patient (deliberate self-extubation) is the most common type of UE [3,10,12,16–18]. A multicenter trial of 426 patients from 11 medical centers indicates that 46 patients experienced UE, with 36 of these (78.2%) caused by patient self-extubation [6]. Prospective single-site studies report similar or higher estimates of patient self-extubation, ranging from 75.8% to 91.7% [3,5], while a multisite study of 10,112 patients revealed 32 of 35 UE (91.4%) were due to patient self-extubation [12]. Similarly, a 4-year analysis of 85 UEs reported 82 incidences (96.5%) were a result of deliberate patient removal [13]. Patients either physically pull out the endotracheal tube or use their tongue or coughing/gagging maneuvers to displace or intentionally remove the endotracheal tube [5]. Only 3% to 8% of UEs are caused by inadvertent removal by health care staff [3,5,12,13].

Effects on Patient and Organizational Outcomes

Regardless of the cause of the UE, there are adverse consequences for both patients and hospitals. Some patients who experience UE have higher rates of in-hospital mortality; however, this is often due to contributing factors associated with severity of injury, the need for reintubation, and underlying chronic diseases [13]. Patients who experience accidental UE have higher incidence of nosocomial pneumonia (27.6% vs. 138%, P = 0.002) [11], longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and increased length of stay (LOS) [7,13]. While some studies report UE can result in serious consequences such as respiratory distress, hypoxia [13], and even death [6,12], others report lower mortality and length of stay when UE occurs, likely due to the fact that many patients are ready for liberation from mechanical ventilation at the time of UE [5,15].

Despite the emergent nature of UE, not all patients experience immediate reintubation. Many instances of UE occur during patient weaning trials or in preparation for planned extubations [5,11], which explains why only 10% to 60% of patients require reintubation [3,5,10,11,15,19,20]. When reintubation is necessary, it results in increased number of ventilator days [10,11], and increased ICU and hospital LOS [1,11]. There is little evidence directly linking reintubation with in-hospital mortality; however, it can cause serious complications such as hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmias, and airway trauma [21]. For hospitals and health care organizations, the need for reintubation results in increased hospital costs, estimated to be $1000 per reintubation event [17,22]. This estimate does not take into account additional costs incurred with increased ICU care, longer periods of mechanical ventilation, and increased LOS. Estimates of these additional costs in pediatric patients are approximately $36,000 [23]. Costs are likely higher in adult patients, due to multiple comorbidities that often accompany the need for mechanical ventilation, as well as increased pharmacy, lab, and diagnostic charges [1].

Risk Factors for Unplanned Extubation

Medical ICU Risk Factors

MICUs traditionally have the highest rates of UE [4,8]. Data from a national prevalence study indicated that there were 23.4 episodes of UE in MICUs per 1000 ventilator days [4]. Approximately 9.5% to 15% of all ventilated patients in the MICU experience UE [4,5,8]. Patients in the MICU who require mechanical ventilation often have complex chronic illness with underlying respiratory disease, which can result in prolonged periods of ventilation and increased risk of UE. Specific risk factors investigated in UE research include patient specific factors (age, gender, diagnosis, comorbidities, agitation, level of consciousness, laboratory values), ventilatory factors (ventilator type and setting, type of tracheal tube, method of tube fixation), as well as type of sedation and use of protocols [5,6,24]. Surprisingly, few variables emerge as significant risk factors for UE among MICU patients. Risk factors associated with UE have included male gender [24], presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [24], increased level of consciousness [25], and use of weaning protocols [5]. While gender, COPD, and level of consciousness increase risk of UE, the presence of weaning protocols is shown to decrease risk of UE [5]. Although UE are reported most often in MICUs, few risk factors consistently emerge for this specific cohort, making definitive recommendations for prevention of UE difficult.

Surgical ICU Risk Factors

The prevalence of UE for mechanically ventilated patients in the SICU tend to be lower than those for MICU cohorts. Prevalence of UE in the SICU is reported at 1.41 episodes per 100 ventilator days [13], or 6.8 episodes per 1000 ventilator days [4]. Percentages of UE in the SICU range from 2% to 6% [4,8,19]. Similar to MICU patients, critically ill patients in the SICU often have specific risk factors placing them at risk for UE. Causative factors examined in research studies with this population include gender, age, sedation scale scores, need for reintubation, time from intubation to extubation, use of sedatives/analgesics, restraints, ICU nurse experience, location of staff at time of UE, and criteria for extubation [17,19]. Similar to MICU cohorts, few variables are identified as predictors of UE. Significant predictors include use of restraints, decreased sedation [17], and meeting criteria for extubation [19]. Among patients who experienced an UE, 87% were restrained at the time of the UE [17], and most had low levels of sedation (mean Ramsay sedation scale score = 2.42 in the hour preceding the UE). Approximately 64% of patients who experienced UE met criteria for planned extubation and did not require re-intubation [19], suggesting many patients were essentially ready for planned extubation.

Mixed ICU Risk Factors

The majority of research investigating risk factors for UE is conducted within medical-surgical or mixed/general ICUs. The prevalence of UE within this type of unit is reported at 1.59 episodes per 100 patient days [6], or approximately 2% to 10% [4,6,7]. Among this population, potential risk factors are similar to those included in solely MICU or SICU studies. Because of the high number of studies investigating UE in a mixed ICU setting, there are significantly more variables included in as potential risk factors. Variables include patient age, gender, admission diagnosis, injury severity using Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), ICU and hospital LOS, patient level of consciousness, agitation, days of mechanical ventilation, ventilator settings, nosocomial infection, sedation, physical restraints, vital signs [7,14,26], laboratory values, medication types, and body mass index [15,26]. One study also included time of UE and ICU nurse level of experience [3]. Among all factors, several were significant predictors of UE: male gender [15], decreased sedation and increased level of consciousness [8], agitation [3,19,26], use of restraints [3,7], sedation practices (particularly use of benzodiazapines) [3,7,15,26,27], lack of strong tube fixation, absence of IV sedation, and orotracheal intubation [6]. UE were more likely to occur on the night shift and among staff that included nurses with fewer years of experience [3]. Many episodes of UE occurred during weaning [10] or among patients who could communicate and were alert [3]. One study reports 57% of patients who intentionally self-extubated explained they simply removed the tube because it was uncomfortable [3].

Strategies for Reducing Adverse Events

Agitation Management

The majority of studies cited agitation, altered level of consciousness, or inadequate sedation as risk factors for UE [3,6–8,15,17,18,25,26,28,29]. These factors directly impact restraint use, another common risk factor for UE [3,7,17]. A key recommendation for agitation management is to identify the source of agitation, which is often caused by delirium onset in the ICU [30–32]. Prevalence of delirium in the ICU ranges from 20% to 80% [33–35]. ICU patients are at high risk for delirium due to sleep deprivation, older age, restraints, abnormal lab values, medications, infection, and respiratory complications [31]. Treatment for delirium centers on prevention, early recognition, interdisciplinary and pharmacologic protocols, increased nursing presence, and use of short-acting sedation when necessary [30–32,36]. While there is no research specifically linking delirium to UE, a quality analysis of risk factors present at the time of UE using bow-tie analysis methods identified delirium as a key factor present in the majority of UE cases [36]. It is possible that agitation reported in other studies investigating risk factors for UE may actually be reflective of underlying delirium. Routine screening using validated tools, such as the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU) [37] would aid in early detection and management of delirium, and would provide a standardized method for exploring the relationship of delirium and UE in future trials.

Integration of Weaning Protocols

Protocol-directed weaning is beneficial for decreasing ventilator days, time to wean from mechanical ventilation, and ICU LOS [38]. A systematic review including 7 trials (2434 patients) comparing protocol/non-protocol for weaning from mechanical ventilation reported a 26% decrease in the mean duration of mechanical ventilation for the protocol groups (95% CI 13%–37%, P < 0.001), a 70% reduction in time to wean, (95% CI 27%–88%, P = 0.009), and a decrease in ICU LOS by 11% (95% CI 3%–19%, P = 0.01). Weaning protocols are also an important risk factor for UE [5]. Findings from a prospective cohort study specifically identify the presence of weaning protocols as an important factor for reducing UE; patients who had weaning protocols ordered and followed were least likely to experience UE (P = 0.02) [5]. A separate quality improvement initiative demonstrated an overall decrease in the number of UEs (from 5.2% to 0.9%) after implementing weaning protocols as standard of care [39]. Considering many UEs occur during weaning [10], integration of weaning protocols aids in expediting the process and ensuring timely extubation.

Increased Surveillance

Increasing surveillance and monitoring of ventilated patients is a recommendation based on risk factors presented at the time of UE. Specifically, staffing levels and shifts and the use of physical restraints are variables associated with UE that are amendable to changes in unit processes based on increased surveillance. It is reported that 40% to 76% of UEs occurred during the night shift [14,17,24,40]; many more occur during change of shift or when there is not a nurse present at the bedside [3,17]. Recent trends towards mandatory bedside reporting is a specific intervention that may positively impact UE among patients in the ICU [41]. Meta-analyses of observational studies investigating the effect of nurse staffing on hospital outcomes indicate that increasing the number of RNs is associated with decreased risk of adverse patient outcomes, including UE [42,43]. The addition of 1 additional nurse per patient day can result in a 51% decrease in UE, while a decrease in nursing workload could result in a 45% decrease in UE [42]. Data from a national prevalence study reports ICUs with fewer available resources, including staff, experienced a higher number of UEs [4].

Increasing surveillance by nursing and health care staff may also impact prevalence of physical restraint use. A significant number of patients who experience UE are physically restrained at the time of the incident, ranging from 40% to 90% of intubated patients [5–7,14,17,40]. It is well documented that UE continue to occur despite the use of restraints [5,7,28,29,44] Patients who are physically restrained often experience higher rates of unplanned extubation (42.9% vs. 16.5% , P < 0.001 in Chang et al’s study [7]), and longer ICU LOS (20.3 days vs. 15.8 days, P = 0.009) [7]. Soft wrist restraints are commonly used to prevent pulling of the endotracheal tube; however, research evidence on UE demonstrates this is not always an effective intervention. Increasing surveillance of ventilated patients, treating their agitation and screening for underlying delirium, and integration of weaning protocols are all interventions that may decrease UE and the need for routine use of physical restraints.

Ongoing Education for Patients and Health Care Staff

Initial and ongoing education about UE, risk factors, and effective interventions is beneficial for patients and health care staff. Although there are no trials investigating effects of educational interventions for patients on UE outcomes, pre-education of surgical patients regarding what to expect while intubated may aid in decreasing delirium risk, agitation, physical restraint use, and possibly UE. Verbal and written educational information during pre-admission testing is a feasible method easily integrated into pre-operative programs.

Because UEs often occur more frequently among less experienced staff, initial education about risk factors for UE is crucial to include in ICU staff orientation programs [3,7]. Educational initiatives should incorporate training on routine delirium screening and avoidance of agitation, use of protocols, and increased surveillance of patients receiving mechanical ventilation [5,15,17,39,45]. Ongoing education of staff regarding ventilatory equipment and risk factors for UE can be particularly effective in decreasing UE [46]. Initial educational efforts should be followed by routine updates for all members of the healthcare team about ongoing quality improvement efforts to monitor UE. Associated factors for UE that may be unit- or process-specific, including methods for endotracheal tube securement and intra-hospital transport, should be communicated with all individuals involved in patient care. Integration of continuous quality improvement programs can decrease UE rates by 22% to 53% [16]. Quality efforts typically focus on standardization of reporting and tracking tools, protocol implementations, and ongoing monitoring, auditing, and recording of UE.

Current Trends and Future Directions

Recent trends in critical care recommendations may mitigate potential risk factors identified in UE research. Integration of lightened sedation and daily wake up periods for intubated patients may decrease prevalence of risk factors for UE, specifically agitation, physical restraint use, and altered level of consciousness [30], while routine weaning protocols may improve ventilatory outcomes, including UE [5,38,40]. Nursing bedside report and purposeful hourly rounding are quickly emerging as mainstays of professional nursing care [41]. Inherent in these 2 initiatives are increased surveillance and vigilance by health care staff, which can result in timely extubation of those who indicate readiness, as well as decreased incidence of adverse events. Delirium remains a key factor that may be a likely cause for UE; recent trends towards early detection and proper management of delirium among ICU staff may result in improved ventilatory outcomes, including weaning, planned extubation, and the prevalence of UE.

Another important trend in critical care is the emergence of a neurocritical care specialty and routine admission of neurocritically ill patients to neuroscience ICUs [47,48]. However, there are no studies investigating prevalence of UE among these patients, who often have higher rates of agitation or restlessness due to cognitive impairment. Among general ICUs, patients with a primary respiratory diagnosis accounted for 23% of all UE in one study, while those with a neurological diagnosis accounted for the second highest percentage (12%) among the study population [15]. A separate study concluded that presence of neurological injury with a concomitant nosocomial infection increased risk of UE among patients in a mixed ICU [7]. A recent systematic review of weaning protocols highlights positive effects on ventilatory outcomes but cites lack of evidence for effectiveness of protocols among those with neurological injury [38]. Areas for future UE research should include factors specific to this patient population, as they may be at higher risk for adverse ventilatory outcomes due to the nature of the neurological injury.

Conclusion

Prevention of UE remains an elusive target, evidenced by little change in reported rates over 2 decades. Research provides data on risk factors that may be patient, unit, or process related. Structuring prevention efforts around modifiable risk factors for UE is a feasible approach amenable to ongoing monitoring for effectiveness. Integration of current trends in health care safety and quality may produce an added benefit of reducing the occurrence of UE in critical care units. Future research evaluating these trends and the prevalence of UE in subspecialty populations is warranted.

Corresponding author: Molly McNett, PhD, RN, CNRN, Attn: NBO, MetroHealth Medical Center, 2500 MetroHealth Drive; Cleveland, OH 44109, [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

From the MetroHealth System, Cleveland, OH.

Abstract

• Objective: To describe risk factors for unplanned extubation (UE) among critically ill adults requiring mechanical ventilation and to identify strategies to reduce the occurrence of this adverse event.
• Methods: Review of the literature.
• Results: Inadvertent removal of an endotracheal tube, or a UE, occurs in 7% to 22.5% of mechanically ventilated adult patients and is often due to deliberate patient removal. Despite the multitude of research examining risk factors and predictors of UE, rates have remained unchanged for the past 2 decades. Risk factors can be classified by intensive care unit (ICU) type, including medical ICUs, surgical ICUs, and mixed medical-surgical ICUs. The majority of risk factors for UEs across ICUs may be amenable to changes in unit processes, such as programs for agitation management, use of weaning protocols, increased surveillance of patients, and ongoing education for patients and health care staff.
• Conclusion: Prevention of UE remains an elusive target. Changes in unit processes that target identified risk factors may be an effective method to decrease prevalence of UE.

Unplanned extubation (UE) is the inadvertent removal of an endotracheal tube, either by a patient (deliberate self-extubation), or by a member of the health care team providing routine care such as repositioning, suctioning, or procedures (accidental extubation). Approximately 7% to 22.5% of mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit (ICU) experience UE [1–7]. Estimates are likely higher, as current regulatory and accreditation standards do not include mandatory reporting of this event. Despite numerous studies investigating risk factors associated with UE, it remains a prevalent problem with adverse outcomes for patients and hospitals. The purpose of this review is to provide a summary of the literature on risk factors for UE, review effects on patient and organizational outcomes, and identify evidence-based strategies for reducing occurrence of UE among mechanically ventilated patients.

Prevalence of Unplanned Exubation

There is substantial heterogeneity in how UE is calculated and reported in the research literature. UE is calculated as the number of UE events per 100 or 1000 patient days, or the number of UE per total ventilator days. Rates of UE are also reported as the proportion of patients who experience UE out of all intubated patients over a set time period [8]. Despite efforts aimed at mitigating risk factors for UE, rates have remained static over the past 2 decades. Reported UE rates from 1994–2002 were 2.6% to 14% [3,6,9–11], while rates from 2004–2014 ranged from 1% to 22% [3–5,8,12–15]. Interventions utilizing a multidisciplinary approach have been implemented with the aim of decreasing UE, yet few have proven successful on improving rates nationally.

Unplanned self-extubation by the patient (deliberate self-extubation) is the most common type of UE [3,10,12,16–18]. A multicenter trial of 426 patients from 11 medical centers indicates that 46 patients experienced UE, with 36 of these (78.2%) caused by patient self-extubation [6]. Prospective single-site studies report similar or higher estimates of patient self-extubation, ranging from 75.8% to 91.7% [3,5], while a multisite study of 10,112 patients revealed 32 of 35 UE (91.4%) were due to patient self-extubation [12]. Similarly, a 4-year analysis of 85 UEs reported 82 incidences (96.5%) were a result of deliberate patient removal [13]. Patients either physically pull out the endotracheal tube or use their tongue or coughing/gagging maneuvers to displace or intentionally remove the endotracheal tube [5]. Only 3% to 8% of UEs are caused by inadvertent removal by health care staff [3,5,12,13].

Effects on Patient and Organizational Outcomes

Regardless of the cause of the UE, there are adverse consequences for both patients and hospitals. Some patients who experience UE have higher rates of in-hospital mortality; however, this is often due to contributing factors associated with severity of injury, the need for reintubation, and underlying chronic diseases [13]. Patients who experience accidental UE have higher incidence of nosocomial pneumonia (27.6% vs. 138%, P = 0.002) [11], longer duration of mechanical ventilation, and increased length of stay (LOS) [7,13]. While some studies report UE can result in serious consequences such as respiratory distress, hypoxia [13], and even death [6,12], others report lower mortality and length of stay when UE occurs, likely due to the fact that many patients are ready for liberation from mechanical ventilation at the time of UE [5,15].

Despite the emergent nature of UE, not all patients experience immediate reintubation. Many instances of UE occur during patient weaning trials or in preparation for planned extubations [5,11], which explains why only 10% to 60% of patients require reintubation [3,5,10,11,15,19,20]. When reintubation is necessary, it results in increased number of ventilator days [10,11], and increased ICU and hospital LOS [1,11]. There is little evidence directly linking reintubation with in-hospital mortality; however, it can cause serious complications such as hypotension, hypertension, arrhythmias, and airway trauma [21]. For hospitals and health care organizations, the need for reintubation results in increased hospital costs, estimated to be $1000 per reintubation event [17,22]. This estimate does not take into account additional costs incurred with increased ICU care, longer periods of mechanical ventilation, and increased LOS. Estimates of these additional costs in pediatric patients are approximately $36,000 [23]. Costs are likely higher in adult patients, due to multiple comorbidities that often accompany the need for mechanical ventilation, as well as increased pharmacy, lab, and diagnostic charges [1].

Risk Factors for Unplanned Extubation

Medical ICU Risk Factors

MICUs traditionally have the highest rates of UE [4,8]. Data from a national prevalence study indicated that there were 23.4 episodes of UE in MICUs per 1000 ventilator days [4]. Approximately 9.5% to 15% of all ventilated patients in the MICU experience UE [4,5,8]. Patients in the MICU who require mechanical ventilation often have complex chronic illness with underlying respiratory disease, which can result in prolonged periods of ventilation and increased risk of UE. Specific risk factors investigated in UE research include patient specific factors (age, gender, diagnosis, comorbidities, agitation, level of consciousness, laboratory values), ventilatory factors (ventilator type and setting, type of tracheal tube, method of tube fixation), as well as type of sedation and use of protocols [5,6,24]. Surprisingly, few variables emerge as significant risk factors for UE among MICU patients. Risk factors associated with UE have included male gender [24], presence of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) [24], increased level of consciousness [25], and use of weaning protocols [5]. While gender, COPD, and level of consciousness increase risk of UE, the presence of weaning protocols is shown to decrease risk of UE [5]. Although UE are reported most often in MICUs, few risk factors consistently emerge for this specific cohort, making definitive recommendations for prevention of UE difficult.

Surgical ICU Risk Factors

The prevalence of UE for mechanically ventilated patients in the SICU tend to be lower than those for MICU cohorts. Prevalence of UE in the SICU is reported at 1.41 episodes per 100 ventilator days [13], or 6.8 episodes per 1000 ventilator days [4]. Percentages of UE in the SICU range from 2% to 6% [4,8,19]. Similar to MICU patients, critically ill patients in the SICU often have specific risk factors placing them at risk for UE. Causative factors examined in research studies with this population include gender, age, sedation scale scores, need for reintubation, time from intubation to extubation, use of sedatives/analgesics, restraints, ICU nurse experience, location of staff at time of UE, and criteria for extubation [17,19]. Similar to MICU cohorts, few variables are identified as predictors of UE. Significant predictors include use of restraints, decreased sedation [17], and meeting criteria for extubation [19]. Among patients who experienced an UE, 87% were restrained at the time of the UE [17], and most had low levels of sedation (mean Ramsay sedation scale score = 2.42 in the hour preceding the UE). Approximately 64% of patients who experienced UE met criteria for planned extubation and did not require re-intubation [19], suggesting many patients were essentially ready for planned extubation.

Mixed ICU Risk Factors

The majority of research investigating risk factors for UE is conducted within medical-surgical or mixed/general ICUs. The prevalence of UE within this type of unit is reported at 1.59 episodes per 100 patient days [6], or approximately 2% to 10% [4,6,7]. Among this population, potential risk factors are similar to those included in solely MICU or SICU studies. Because of the high number of studies investigating UE in a mixed ICU setting, there are significantly more variables included in as potential risk factors. Variables include patient age, gender, admission diagnosis, injury severity using Acute Physiological and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE II), ICU and hospital LOS, patient level of consciousness, agitation, days of mechanical ventilation, ventilator settings, nosocomial infection, sedation, physical restraints, vital signs [7,14,26], laboratory values, medication types, and body mass index [15,26]. One study also included time of UE and ICU nurse level of experience [3]. Among all factors, several were significant predictors of UE: male gender [15], decreased sedation and increased level of consciousness [8], agitation [3,19,26], use of restraints [3,7], sedation practices (particularly use of benzodiazapines) [3,7,15,26,27], lack of strong tube fixation, absence of IV sedation, and orotracheal intubation [6]. UE were more likely to occur on the night shift and among staff that included nurses with fewer years of experience [3]. Many episodes of UE occurred during weaning [10] or among patients who could communicate and were alert [3]. One study reports 57% of patients who intentionally self-extubated explained they simply removed the tube because it was uncomfortable [3].

Strategies for Reducing Adverse Events

Agitation Management

The majority of studies cited agitation, altered level of consciousness, or inadequate sedation as risk factors for UE [3,6–8,15,17,18,25,26,28,29]. These factors directly impact restraint use, another common risk factor for UE [3,7,17]. A key recommendation for agitation management is to identify the source of agitation, which is often caused by delirium onset in the ICU [30–32]. Prevalence of delirium in the ICU ranges from 20% to 80% [33–35]. ICU patients are at high risk for delirium due to sleep deprivation, older age, restraints, abnormal lab values, medications, infection, and respiratory complications [31]. Treatment for delirium centers on prevention, early recognition, interdisciplinary and pharmacologic protocols, increased nursing presence, and use of short-acting sedation when necessary [30–32,36]. While there is no research specifically linking delirium to UE, a quality analysis of risk factors present at the time of UE using bow-tie analysis methods identified delirium as a key factor present in the majority of UE cases [36]. It is possible that agitation reported in other studies investigating risk factors for UE may actually be reflective of underlying delirium. Routine screening using validated tools, such as the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU (CAM-ICU) [37] would aid in early detection and management of delirium, and would provide a standardized method for exploring the relationship of delirium and UE in future trials.

Integration of Weaning Protocols

Protocol-directed weaning is beneficial for decreasing ventilator days, time to wean from mechanical ventilation, and ICU LOS [38]. A systematic review including 7 trials (2434 patients) comparing protocol/non-protocol for weaning from mechanical ventilation reported a 26% decrease in the mean duration of mechanical ventilation for the protocol groups (95% CI 13%–37%, P < 0.001), a 70% reduction in time to wean, (95% CI 27%–88%, P = 0.009), and a decrease in ICU LOS by 11% (95% CI 3%–19%, P = 0.01). Weaning protocols are also an important risk factor for UE [5]. Findings from a prospective cohort study specifically identify the presence of weaning protocols as an important factor for reducing UE; patients who had weaning protocols ordered and followed were least likely to experience UE (P = 0.02) [5]. A separate quality improvement initiative demonstrated an overall decrease in the number of UEs (from 5.2% to 0.9%) after implementing weaning protocols as standard of care [39]. Considering many UEs occur during weaning [10], integration of weaning protocols aids in expediting the process and ensuring timely extubation.

Increased Surveillance

Increasing surveillance and monitoring of ventilated patients is a recommendation based on risk factors presented at the time of UE. Specifically, staffing levels and shifts and the use of physical restraints are variables associated with UE that are amendable to changes in unit processes based on increased surveillance. It is reported that 40% to 76% of UEs occurred during the night shift [14,17,24,40]; many more occur during change of shift or when there is not a nurse present at the bedside [3,17]. Recent trends towards mandatory bedside reporting is a specific intervention that may positively impact UE among patients in the ICU [41]. Meta-analyses of observational studies investigating the effect of nurse staffing on hospital outcomes indicate that increasing the number of RNs is associated with decreased risk of adverse patient outcomes, including UE [42,43]. The addition of 1 additional nurse per patient day can result in a 51% decrease in UE, while a decrease in nursing workload could result in a 45% decrease in UE [42]. Data from a national prevalence study reports ICUs with fewer available resources, including staff, experienced a higher number of UEs [4].

Increasing surveillance by nursing and health care staff may also impact prevalence of physical restraint use. A significant number of patients who experience UE are physically restrained at the time of the incident, ranging from 40% to 90% of intubated patients [5–7,14,17,40]. It is well documented that UE continue to occur despite the use of restraints [5,7,28,29,44] Patients who are physically restrained often experience higher rates of unplanned extubation (42.9% vs. 16.5% , P < 0.001 in Chang et al’s study [7]), and longer ICU LOS (20.3 days vs. 15.8 days, P = 0.009) [7]. Soft wrist restraints are commonly used to prevent pulling of the endotracheal tube; however, research evidence on UE demonstrates this is not always an effective intervention. Increasing surveillance of ventilated patients, treating their agitation and screening for underlying delirium, and integration of weaning protocols are all interventions that may decrease UE and the need for routine use of physical restraints.

Ongoing Education for Patients and Health Care Staff

Initial and ongoing education about UE, risk factors, and effective interventions is beneficial for patients and health care staff. Although there are no trials investigating effects of educational interventions for patients on UE outcomes, pre-education of surgical patients regarding what to expect while intubated may aid in decreasing delirium risk, agitation, physical restraint use, and possibly UE. Verbal and written educational information during pre-admission testing is a feasible method easily integrated into pre-operative programs.

Because UEs often occur more frequently among less experienced staff, initial education about risk factors for UE is crucial to include in ICU staff orientation programs [3,7]. Educational initiatives should incorporate training on routine delirium screening and avoidance of agitation, use of protocols, and increased surveillance of patients receiving mechanical ventilation [5,15,17,39,45]. Ongoing education of staff regarding ventilatory equipment and risk factors for UE can be particularly effective in decreasing UE [46]. Initial educational efforts should be followed by routine updates for all members of the healthcare team about ongoing quality improvement efforts to monitor UE. Associated factors for UE that may be unit- or process-specific, including methods for endotracheal tube securement and intra-hospital transport, should be communicated with all individuals involved in patient care. Integration of continuous quality improvement programs can decrease UE rates by 22% to 53% [16]. Quality efforts typically focus on standardization of reporting and tracking tools, protocol implementations, and ongoing monitoring, auditing, and recording of UE.

Current Trends and Future Directions

Recent trends in critical care recommendations may mitigate potential risk factors identified in UE research. Integration of lightened sedation and daily wake up periods for intubated patients may decrease prevalence of risk factors for UE, specifically agitation, physical restraint use, and altered level of consciousness [30], while routine weaning protocols may improve ventilatory outcomes, including UE [5,38,40]. Nursing bedside report and purposeful hourly rounding are quickly emerging as mainstays of professional nursing care [41]. Inherent in these 2 initiatives are increased surveillance and vigilance by health care staff, which can result in timely extubation of those who indicate readiness, as well as decreased incidence of adverse events. Delirium remains a key factor that may be a likely cause for UE; recent trends towards early detection and proper management of delirium among ICU staff may result in improved ventilatory outcomes, including weaning, planned extubation, and the prevalence of UE.

Another important trend in critical care is the emergence of a neurocritical care specialty and routine admission of neurocritically ill patients to neuroscience ICUs [47,48]. However, there are no studies investigating prevalence of UE among these patients, who often have higher rates of agitation or restlessness due to cognitive impairment. Among general ICUs, patients with a primary respiratory diagnosis accounted for 23% of all UE in one study, while those with a neurological diagnosis accounted for the second highest percentage (12%) among the study population [15]. A separate study concluded that presence of neurological injury with a concomitant nosocomial infection increased risk of UE among patients in a mixed ICU [7]. A recent systematic review of weaning protocols highlights positive effects on ventilatory outcomes but cites lack of evidence for effectiveness of protocols among those with neurological injury [38]. Areas for future UE research should include factors specific to this patient population, as they may be at higher risk for adverse ventilatory outcomes due to the nature of the neurological injury.

Conclusion

Prevention of UE remains an elusive target, evidenced by little change in reported rates over 2 decades. Research provides data on risk factors that may be patient, unit, or process related. Structuring prevention efforts around modifiable risk factors for UE is a feasible approach amenable to ongoing monitoring for effectiveness. Integration of current trends in health care safety and quality may produce an added benefit of reducing the occurrence of UE in critical care units. Future research evaluating these trends and the prevalence of UE in subspecialty populations is warranted.

Corresponding author: Molly McNett, PhD, RN, CNRN, Attn: NBO, MetroHealth Medical Center, 2500 MetroHealth Drive; Cleveland, OH 44109, [email protected].

Financial disclosures: None.

Anxiety is a necessary and natural reaction to trauma, but, sometimes, anxiety symptoms become excessive and problematic, as experienced with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some patients who struggle with PTSD endure a relentless apprehension so intense that it keeps them from participating in everyday activities, such as attending work and partaking in social activities. Associated anxiety symptoms severely impair everyday function and include increased heart rate, sweating, intrusive images, poor attention, fear, or insomnia. Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms often lead to occupational dysfunction, relationship difficulty, and numerous other functional impairments.

Approximately 300,000 veterans meet the criteria for PTSD related to ongoing or recent wars.¹ The veteran does not bear the personal and functional burden alone; however, the financial load is felt throughout society. One recent study suggests that for veterans diagnosed with PTSD, the first 2 years after deployment cost society an estimated $7,000 per individial.² Current research suggests that this potentially debilitating disorder occurs in about 14% of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom combat troops, whereas the similar U.S. demographic population experiences PTSD at a rate of about 7%.^1,3 The ongoing military trauma exposures are compelling the mental health community to establish efficient and effective treatment options.^4,5

Several treatment strategies exist to reduce PTSD symptoms, but health care professionals must seek a balance between therapeutic benefit and cost. The treatment of PTSD is diverse and variable; however, in the most recent Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for PTSD, the VA and DoD specifically endorse some psychotherapeutic interventions while dissuading the use of others.⁶ Of note, the VA and DoD CPG strongly encourages Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) and similar cognitive therapies aimed at guiding patients through the process of consciously understanding the relationship between thoughts and feelings and then modifying thoughts to appropriately manage stressors.⁶ Meanwhile, group psychotherapy has been determined to be “somewhat helpful.”⁶ Even though cognitive- and group-based therapies have long been established as efficacious for numerous psychological disorders (depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, etc), neither the American Group Psychotherapy Association nor the VA and DoD CPG directly endorse the use of group cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) for the treatment of PTSD.^6,7 However, both VA and DoD mental health providers commonly practice CBT and various group psychotherapies for the treatment of PTSD.

Despite the widespread use of CBT, there is a gap in the clinical understanding of the evidence supporting GCBT for PTSD. The goal of this synthesis was to understand the efficacy of treating PTSD symptoms with group psychotherapy. To begin this investigation, the following PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) question was asked: In adults diagnosed with PTSD, how effective is group cognitive behavioral therapy in reducing PTSD-related symptoms?

Methods

Research articles addressing the use of GCBT in PTSD were obtained via database searches that took place during October 2012 (Table). Searched databases included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Randomized Controlled Trials, Psychological Information (PsycINFO), and Public Medicine (PubMed).

The PubMed database was searched using the following MeSH (medical subject heading) terms: “psychotherapy, group” and “stress disorders, post-traumatic” and “cognitive therapy.” Limitations were set to include only patients aged ≥ 18 years, results in English, those involving human subjects, and articles published within the past 5 years. A manual search of references was also conducted, and relevant articles were retained.

Articles that addressed primary substance abuse, other DSM Axis I disorders, intimate partner violence, or family issues were excluded from the evidence sample due to concerns of an alternate treatment focus. Articles with a focus on telehealth or alternative medicine were considered confounding to the scope of this review were also excluded. It was also noted that the term CBT is used collectively for an umbrella of treatments; however, treatments that focused on elements other than the components of CBT being delivered in a group were not included. To prevent duplication of the results, research from an inclusive review was not considered individually.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Six works fulfilled the PICO criteria and were of sufficient quality to be synthesized. Of the 6 articles retained for synthesis, 2 were high-level reviews. Both reviews supported the use of GCBT for PTSD treatment. Barrera and colleagues reported an overall large effect size regardless of the presence of exposure in-group among the 12 treatment conditions and 651 study participants.⁸ These researchers also reported that in-group exposure did not further traumatize other group members.

Similarly, although a notably older and smaller review, Bisson and Andrew reported a significant standard mean deviation between 4 GCBT treatment and wait list controls. These reviewers did not find a significant difference between trauma- and nontrauma-focused treatment groups. The reviews also noted that individual psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy was most often continued throughout the reviewed studies.^8,9

The 4 other studies contribute substantively to this synthesis but arguably represent lower evidence quality. A large longitudinal study of 496 Australian veterans reported a large effect size that was sustained 9 months after treatment began.¹⁰ These researchers used an intensive outpatient program that included medication and other treatment modalities as the basis for GCBT delivery. They reported that the majority of the patients revealed improvement in PTSD symptoms.

Another study sampled a similar group of 10 combat veterans but focused particular attention on sleep-related PTSD symptoms of insomnia, nightmares, and sleep quality.¹¹ Although these researchers were unable to report a significant difference in overall PTSD symptoms for the 8 subjects who completed the protocol, they did find a large effect size on insomnia severity and a medium effect size on sleep quality. Regular treatment, including medication, continued throughout this study.

Other researchers reported a medium effect size on PTSD symptoms while using GCBT in a heterogeneous group with various anxiety disorders, including obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorders, and PTSD.¹² Although reporting similar results as all other included studies, this study has some significant limitations, including a 26% dropout rate among the 152 participants. The final study included for synthesis reported a remarkable 67% elimination of the PTSD diagnosis among 6 motor vehicle accident survivors in the small, uncontrolled study.¹³ Concomitant treatments, including medications, were not reported in detail for these 4 studies except as mentioned.

As a whole, the 6 studies revealed some appreciable commonalities. Time since diagnosis did not seem to influence the results. Attrition was consistently found to be similar to other PTSD treatments. The reported session topics were loosely based on common CBT tenets (ie, education, challenging cognitions, and relaxation techniques) and were typically similar among treatment groups, including the use of homework.

DISCUSSION

As the diagnosis of PTSD increases to unfamiliar levels, GCBT has the potential to be helpful to clinicians and patients seeking alternatives to their current treatments.^1,4,14 The reported results imply that GCBT can be useful in PTSD symptom reduction. This could be particularly useful to VA and military providers or rural providers operating with limited resources.

Treatment protocols are not well established and should be approached with care prior to the establishment of CBT treatment groups for those diagnosed with PTSD. Session overviews and descriptions, such as those mentioned in Thompson and colleagues, could provide a reference point for future use.¹³

Also worth considering, CBT can be an ambiguous term requiring deliberate definition within treatment protocols. As noted in the VA and DoD CPG, exposure- and trauma-focused treatment designs can be efficacious, but these elements do not seem to be required within the GCBT treatment setting.

The current research also suggests GCBT efficacy regardless of the index trauma. This does not suggest that heterogeneous groups were frequently studied nor can conclusions be drawn regarding heterogeneous treatment groups. Elements such as group size and session length are inconsistently reported and require specific consideration as well. There is a distinct lack of research directly comparing individual CBT with GCBT directly, which prohibits meaningful conclusions regarding PTSD symptom reduction. This research gap may well have influenced the recommendations within the VA and DoD CPG. Although some higher quality studies exist, many of the published reports on GCBT have noteworthy design flaw, such as inadequate controls and statistical analysis.

LIMITATIONS

There are some limitations to this literature synthesis. Although the search was limited to the past 5 years, the inclusion of reviews accounts for older evidence. As alluded to earlier, the lack of a standardized GCBT treatment protocol challenges results comparisons as well. The consequent treatment variations make direct interstudy comparison and synthesis difficult. Similarly, outcome measures varied between studies. Also, group psychotherapy is well established and accepted. Therefore, much of the supporting research was accomplished outside the parameters of this literature search. This empirical view of group psychotherapy among mental health providers may also contribute to the lack of available research.

It is also worth noting that studies finding neutral or negative results are often unpublished. This publication bias could account for the lack of available evidence. The research reports do not consistently report therapist qualifications; however, board certificates in group psychotherapy and CBT are undeniably variables available for debate. The inclusion of uncontrolled trials limits these findings as well. Although the above limitations are not exhaustive, they do provide necessary caveats to future generalizations.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

Perhaps the most important information to gain from future research is that of treatment outcomes. Studies that include a detailed outcome evaluation could reveal patient satisfaction, efficacy, and financial considerations. In the presence of adequate supportive data, GCBT could contribute outcome data regarding trauma survivor symptom normalization, peer support formation, access to care, treatment efficiency, and health care resources utilization. As noted in Barrera and colleagues, future analysis will require a greater volume of trials with an overall increase in methodological rigor.⁸

Current research has demonstrated a solid base from which to spawn specific treatment protocols. The available research is investigational in terms of treatment procedures. Replication of these studies could dictate treatment protocol and contribute substantively to future VA and DoD CPG updates. Future researchers should consider the use of a standard PTSD symptom assessment tool to make interstudy comparisons more meaningful. The length of treatment and exposure elements should be targeted specifically in future research as these components currently vary the most.

The military represents an obvious avenue for future research due to increased PTSD diagnosis in recent years. Although the etiology of the increase in PTSD is unclear and most likely multifactorial (decreased resilience, increased awareness, increased pursuit of secondary gains, etc), the need for treatment options is apparent.¹ Group cohesion has been shown to be a core component of successful group psychotherapy, so military members who are accustomed to unit cohesion might represent a uniquely suitable population for this modality.¹⁵ Interestingly and for reasons not currently understood, veterans do not see effects of therapy as large as their civilian counterparts.⁸ This underscores the need for further evaluation of military-specific outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the available evidence is not robust, results do support the careful use of GCBT as an effective treatment for PTSD symptom reduction.⁸ Group psychotherapy has been generally regarded as an efficacious and cost-effective method to achieve similar outcomes to individual therapy. Increasing PTSD prevalence compels mental health care providers to explore all available treatment options. The potential for GCBT as an option is exciting, especially for mental health providers and those with limited resources. Rising health care standards and the current national fiscal situation is dictating a reevaluation of treatment options; so perhaps all health care providers will soon consider the use of GCBT.

As with any group assignment, the clinician should carefully consider the individual’s suitability and desire for group participation.¹⁶ With GCBT, providers could facilitate the relief of relentless apprehension and functional impairment for several patients simultaneously. Although there are many details left to explore regarding the use of GCBT for PTSD, the therapy’s foundation for use as a PTSD treatment is apparent.

Author disclosures
The author reports no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Anxiety is a necessary and natural reaction to trauma, but, sometimes, anxiety symptoms become excessive and problematic, as experienced with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some patients who struggle with PTSD endure a relentless apprehension so intense that it keeps them from participating in everyday activities, such as attending work and partaking in social activities. Associated anxiety symptoms severely impair everyday function and include increased heart rate, sweating, intrusive images, poor attention, fear, or insomnia. Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms often lead to occupational dysfunction, relationship difficulty, and numerous other functional impairments.

Approximately 300,000 veterans meet the criteria for PTSD related to ongoing or recent wars.¹ The veteran does not bear the personal and functional burden alone; however, the financial load is felt throughout society. One recent study suggests that for veterans diagnosed with PTSD, the first 2 years after deployment cost society an estimated $7,000 per individial.² Current research suggests that this potentially debilitating disorder occurs in about 14% of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom combat troops, whereas the similar U.S. demographic population experiences PTSD at a rate of about 7%.^1,3 The ongoing military trauma exposures are compelling the mental health community to establish efficient and effective treatment options.^4,5

Several treatment strategies exist to reduce PTSD symptoms, but health care professionals must seek a balance between therapeutic benefit and cost. The treatment of PTSD is diverse and variable; however, in the most recent Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for PTSD, the VA and DoD specifically endorse some psychotherapeutic interventions while dissuading the use of others.⁶ Of note, the VA and DoD CPG strongly encourages Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) and similar cognitive therapies aimed at guiding patients through the process of consciously understanding the relationship between thoughts and feelings and then modifying thoughts to appropriately manage stressors.⁶ Meanwhile, group psychotherapy has been determined to be “somewhat helpful.”⁶ Even though cognitive- and group-based therapies have long been established as efficacious for numerous psychological disorders (depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, etc), neither the American Group Psychotherapy Association nor the VA and DoD CPG directly endorse the use of group cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) for the treatment of PTSD.^6,7 However, both VA and DoD mental health providers commonly practice CBT and various group psychotherapies for the treatment of PTSD.

Despite the widespread use of CBT, there is a gap in the clinical understanding of the evidence supporting GCBT for PTSD. The goal of this synthesis was to understand the efficacy of treating PTSD symptoms with group psychotherapy. To begin this investigation, the following PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) question was asked: In adults diagnosed with PTSD, how effective is group cognitive behavioral therapy in reducing PTSD-related symptoms?

Methods

Research articles addressing the use of GCBT in PTSD were obtained via database searches that took place during October 2012 (Table). Searched databases included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Randomized Controlled Trials, Psychological Information (PsycINFO), and Public Medicine (PubMed).

The PubMed database was searched using the following MeSH (medical subject heading) terms: “psychotherapy, group” and “stress disorders, post-traumatic” and “cognitive therapy.” Limitations were set to include only patients aged ≥ 18 years, results in English, those involving human subjects, and articles published within the past 5 years. A manual search of references was also conducted, and relevant articles were retained.

Articles that addressed primary substance abuse, other DSM Axis I disorders, intimate partner violence, or family issues were excluded from the evidence sample due to concerns of an alternate treatment focus. Articles with a focus on telehealth or alternative medicine were considered confounding to the scope of this review were also excluded. It was also noted that the term CBT is used collectively for an umbrella of treatments; however, treatments that focused on elements other than the components of CBT being delivered in a group were not included. To prevent duplication of the results, research from an inclusive review was not considered individually.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Six works fulfilled the PICO criteria and were of sufficient quality to be synthesized. Of the 6 articles retained for synthesis, 2 were high-level reviews. Both reviews supported the use of GCBT for PTSD treatment. Barrera and colleagues reported an overall large effect size regardless of the presence of exposure in-group among the 12 treatment conditions and 651 study participants.⁸ These researchers also reported that in-group exposure did not further traumatize other group members.

Similarly, although a notably older and smaller review, Bisson and Andrew reported a significant standard mean deviation between 4 GCBT treatment and wait list controls. These reviewers did not find a significant difference between trauma- and nontrauma-focused treatment groups. The reviews also noted that individual psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy was most often continued throughout the reviewed studies.^8,9

The 4 other studies contribute substantively to this synthesis but arguably represent lower evidence quality. A large longitudinal study of 496 Australian veterans reported a large effect size that was sustained 9 months after treatment began.¹⁰ These researchers used an intensive outpatient program that included medication and other treatment modalities as the basis for GCBT delivery. They reported that the majority of the patients revealed improvement in PTSD symptoms.

Another study sampled a similar group of 10 combat veterans but focused particular attention on sleep-related PTSD symptoms of insomnia, nightmares, and sleep quality.¹¹ Although these researchers were unable to report a significant difference in overall PTSD symptoms for the 8 subjects who completed the protocol, they did find a large effect size on insomnia severity and a medium effect size on sleep quality. Regular treatment, including medication, continued throughout this study.

Other researchers reported a medium effect size on PTSD symptoms while using GCBT in a heterogeneous group with various anxiety disorders, including obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorders, and PTSD.¹² Although reporting similar results as all other included studies, this study has some significant limitations, including a 26% dropout rate among the 152 participants. The final study included for synthesis reported a remarkable 67% elimination of the PTSD diagnosis among 6 motor vehicle accident survivors in the small, uncontrolled study.¹³ Concomitant treatments, including medications, were not reported in detail for these 4 studies except as mentioned.

As a whole, the 6 studies revealed some appreciable commonalities. Time since diagnosis did not seem to influence the results. Attrition was consistently found to be similar to other PTSD treatments. The reported session topics were loosely based on common CBT tenets (ie, education, challenging cognitions, and relaxation techniques) and were typically similar among treatment groups, including the use of homework.

DISCUSSION

As the diagnosis of PTSD increases to unfamiliar levels, GCBT has the potential to be helpful to clinicians and patients seeking alternatives to their current treatments.^1,4,14 The reported results imply that GCBT can be useful in PTSD symptom reduction. This could be particularly useful to VA and military providers or rural providers operating with limited resources.

Treatment protocols are not well established and should be approached with care prior to the establishment of CBT treatment groups for those diagnosed with PTSD. Session overviews and descriptions, such as those mentioned in Thompson and colleagues, could provide a reference point for future use.¹³

Also worth considering, CBT can be an ambiguous term requiring deliberate definition within treatment protocols. As noted in the VA and DoD CPG, exposure- and trauma-focused treatment designs can be efficacious, but these elements do not seem to be required within the GCBT treatment setting.

The current research also suggests GCBT efficacy regardless of the index trauma. This does not suggest that heterogeneous groups were frequently studied nor can conclusions be drawn regarding heterogeneous treatment groups. Elements such as group size and session length are inconsistently reported and require specific consideration as well. There is a distinct lack of research directly comparing individual CBT with GCBT directly, which prohibits meaningful conclusions regarding PTSD symptom reduction. This research gap may well have influenced the recommendations within the VA and DoD CPG. Although some higher quality studies exist, many of the published reports on GCBT have noteworthy design flaw, such as inadequate controls and statistical analysis.

LIMITATIONS

There are some limitations to this literature synthesis. Although the search was limited to the past 5 years, the inclusion of reviews accounts for older evidence. As alluded to earlier, the lack of a standardized GCBT treatment protocol challenges results comparisons as well. The consequent treatment variations make direct interstudy comparison and synthesis difficult. Similarly, outcome measures varied between studies. Also, group psychotherapy is well established and accepted. Therefore, much of the supporting research was accomplished outside the parameters of this literature search. This empirical view of group psychotherapy among mental health providers may also contribute to the lack of available research.

It is also worth noting that studies finding neutral or negative results are often unpublished. This publication bias could account for the lack of available evidence. The research reports do not consistently report therapist qualifications; however, board certificates in group psychotherapy and CBT are undeniably variables available for debate. The inclusion of uncontrolled trials limits these findings as well. Although the above limitations are not exhaustive, they do provide necessary caveats to future generalizations.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

Perhaps the most important information to gain from future research is that of treatment outcomes. Studies that include a detailed outcome evaluation could reveal patient satisfaction, efficacy, and financial considerations. In the presence of adequate supportive data, GCBT could contribute outcome data regarding trauma survivor symptom normalization, peer support formation, access to care, treatment efficiency, and health care resources utilization. As noted in Barrera and colleagues, future analysis will require a greater volume of trials with an overall increase in methodological rigor.⁸

Current research has demonstrated a solid base from which to spawn specific treatment protocols. The available research is investigational in terms of treatment procedures. Replication of these studies could dictate treatment protocol and contribute substantively to future VA and DoD CPG updates. Future researchers should consider the use of a standard PTSD symptom assessment tool to make interstudy comparisons more meaningful. The length of treatment and exposure elements should be targeted specifically in future research as these components currently vary the most.

The military represents an obvious avenue for future research due to increased PTSD diagnosis in recent years. Although the etiology of the increase in PTSD is unclear and most likely multifactorial (decreased resilience, increased awareness, increased pursuit of secondary gains, etc), the need for treatment options is apparent.¹ Group cohesion has been shown to be a core component of successful group psychotherapy, so military members who are accustomed to unit cohesion might represent a uniquely suitable population for this modality.¹⁵ Interestingly and for reasons not currently understood, veterans do not see effects of therapy as large as their civilian counterparts.⁸ This underscores the need for further evaluation of military-specific outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the available evidence is not robust, results do support the careful use of GCBT as an effective treatment for PTSD symptom reduction.⁸ Group psychotherapy has been generally regarded as an efficacious and cost-effective method to achieve similar outcomes to individual therapy. Increasing PTSD prevalence compels mental health care providers to explore all available treatment options. The potential for GCBT as an option is exciting, especially for mental health providers and those with limited resources. Rising health care standards and the current national fiscal situation is dictating a reevaluation of treatment options; so perhaps all health care providers will soon consider the use of GCBT.

As with any group assignment, the clinician should carefully consider the individual’s suitability and desire for group participation.¹⁶ With GCBT, providers could facilitate the relief of relentless apprehension and functional impairment for several patients simultaneously. Although there are many details left to explore regarding the use of GCBT for PTSD, the therapy’s foundation for use as a PTSD treatment is apparent.

Author disclosures
The author reports no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.

Anxiety is a necessary and natural reaction to trauma, but, sometimes, anxiety symptoms become excessive and problematic, as experienced with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Some patients who struggle with PTSD endure a relentless apprehension so intense that it keeps them from participating in everyday activities, such as attending work and partaking in social activities. Associated anxiety symptoms severely impair everyday function and include increased heart rate, sweating, intrusive images, poor attention, fear, or insomnia. Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms often lead to occupational dysfunction, relationship difficulty, and numerous other functional impairments.

Approximately 300,000 veterans meet the criteria for PTSD related to ongoing or recent wars.¹ The veteran does not bear the personal and functional burden alone; however, the financial load is felt throughout society. One recent study suggests that for veterans diagnosed with PTSD, the first 2 years after deployment cost society an estimated $7,000 per individial.² Current research suggests that this potentially debilitating disorder occurs in about 14% of Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom combat troops, whereas the similar U.S. demographic population experiences PTSD at a rate of about 7%.^1,3 The ongoing military trauma exposures are compelling the mental health community to establish efficient and effective treatment options.^4,5

Several treatment strategies exist to reduce PTSD symptoms, but health care professionals must seek a balance between therapeutic benefit and cost. The treatment of PTSD is diverse and variable; however, in the most recent Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) for PTSD, the VA and DoD specifically endorse some psychotherapeutic interventions while dissuading the use of others.⁶ Of note, the VA and DoD CPG strongly encourages Stress Inoculation Training (SIT) and similar cognitive therapies aimed at guiding patients through the process of consciously understanding the relationship between thoughts and feelings and then modifying thoughts to appropriately manage stressors.⁶ Meanwhile, group psychotherapy has been determined to be “somewhat helpful.”⁶ Even though cognitive- and group-based therapies have long been established as efficacious for numerous psychological disorders (depression, obsessive compulsive disorder, eating disorders, etc), neither the American Group Psychotherapy Association nor the VA and DoD CPG directly endorse the use of group cognitive behavioral therapy (GCBT) for the treatment of PTSD.^6,7 However, both VA and DoD mental health providers commonly practice CBT and various group psychotherapies for the treatment of PTSD.

Despite the widespread use of CBT, there is a gap in the clinical understanding of the evidence supporting GCBT for PTSD. The goal of this synthesis was to understand the efficacy of treating PTSD symptoms with group psychotherapy. To begin this investigation, the following PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) question was asked: In adults diagnosed with PTSD, how effective is group cognitive behavioral therapy in reducing PTSD-related symptoms?

Methods

Research articles addressing the use of GCBT in PTSD were obtained via database searches that took place during October 2012 (Table). Searched databases included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Randomized Controlled Trials, Psychological Information (PsycINFO), and Public Medicine (PubMed).

The PubMed database was searched using the following MeSH (medical subject heading) terms: “psychotherapy, group” and “stress disorders, post-traumatic” and “cognitive therapy.” Limitations were set to include only patients aged ≥ 18 years, results in English, those involving human subjects, and articles published within the past 5 years. A manual search of references was also conducted, and relevant articles were retained.

Articles that addressed primary substance abuse, other DSM Axis I disorders, intimate partner violence, or family issues were excluded from the evidence sample due to concerns of an alternate treatment focus. Articles with a focus on telehealth or alternative medicine were considered confounding to the scope of this review were also excluded. It was also noted that the term CBT is used collectively for an umbrella of treatments; however, treatments that focused on elements other than the components of CBT being delivered in a group were not included. To prevent duplication of the results, research from an inclusive review was not considered individually.

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

Six works fulfilled the PICO criteria and were of sufficient quality to be synthesized. Of the 6 articles retained for synthesis, 2 were high-level reviews. Both reviews supported the use of GCBT for PTSD treatment. Barrera and colleagues reported an overall large effect size regardless of the presence of exposure in-group among the 12 treatment conditions and 651 study participants.⁸ These researchers also reported that in-group exposure did not further traumatize other group members.

Similarly, although a notably older and smaller review, Bisson and Andrew reported a significant standard mean deviation between 4 GCBT treatment and wait list controls. These reviewers did not find a significant difference between trauma- and nontrauma-focused treatment groups. The reviews also noted that individual psychotherapy and/or pharmacotherapy was most often continued throughout the reviewed studies.^8,9

The 4 other studies contribute substantively to this synthesis but arguably represent lower evidence quality. A large longitudinal study of 496 Australian veterans reported a large effect size that was sustained 9 months after treatment began.¹⁰ These researchers used an intensive outpatient program that included medication and other treatment modalities as the basis for GCBT delivery. They reported that the majority of the patients revealed improvement in PTSD symptoms.

Another study sampled a similar group of 10 combat veterans but focused particular attention on sleep-related PTSD symptoms of insomnia, nightmares, and sleep quality.¹¹ Although these researchers were unable to report a significant difference in overall PTSD symptoms for the 8 subjects who completed the protocol, they did find a large effect size on insomnia severity and a medium effect size on sleep quality. Regular treatment, including medication, continued throughout this study.

Other researchers reported a medium effect size on PTSD symptoms while using GCBT in a heterogeneous group with various anxiety disorders, including obsessive compulsive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, social phobia, panic disorders, and PTSD.¹² Although reporting similar results as all other included studies, this study has some significant limitations, including a 26% dropout rate among the 152 participants. The final study included for synthesis reported a remarkable 67% elimination of the PTSD diagnosis among 6 motor vehicle accident survivors in the small, uncontrolled study.¹³ Concomitant treatments, including medications, were not reported in detail for these 4 studies except as mentioned.

As a whole, the 6 studies revealed some appreciable commonalities. Time since diagnosis did not seem to influence the results. Attrition was consistently found to be similar to other PTSD treatments. The reported session topics were loosely based on common CBT tenets (ie, education, challenging cognitions, and relaxation techniques) and were typically similar among treatment groups, including the use of homework.

DISCUSSION

As the diagnosis of PTSD increases to unfamiliar levels, GCBT has the potential to be helpful to clinicians and patients seeking alternatives to their current treatments.^1,4,14 The reported results imply that GCBT can be useful in PTSD symptom reduction. This could be particularly useful to VA and military providers or rural providers operating with limited resources.

Treatment protocols are not well established and should be approached with care prior to the establishment of CBT treatment groups for those diagnosed with PTSD. Session overviews and descriptions, such as those mentioned in Thompson and colleagues, could provide a reference point for future use.¹³

Also worth considering, CBT can be an ambiguous term requiring deliberate definition within treatment protocols. As noted in the VA and DoD CPG, exposure- and trauma-focused treatment designs can be efficacious, but these elements do not seem to be required within the GCBT treatment setting.

The current research also suggests GCBT efficacy regardless of the index trauma. This does not suggest that heterogeneous groups were frequently studied nor can conclusions be drawn regarding heterogeneous treatment groups. Elements such as group size and session length are inconsistently reported and require specific consideration as well. There is a distinct lack of research directly comparing individual CBT with GCBT directly, which prohibits meaningful conclusions regarding PTSD symptom reduction. This research gap may well have influenced the recommendations within the VA and DoD CPG. Although some higher quality studies exist, many of the published reports on GCBT have noteworthy design flaw, such as inadequate controls and statistical analysis.

LIMITATIONS

There are some limitations to this literature synthesis. Although the search was limited to the past 5 years, the inclusion of reviews accounts for older evidence. As alluded to earlier, the lack of a standardized GCBT treatment protocol challenges results comparisons as well. The consequent treatment variations make direct interstudy comparison and synthesis difficult. Similarly, outcome measures varied between studies. Also, group psychotherapy is well established and accepted. Therefore, much of the supporting research was accomplished outside the parameters of this literature search. This empirical view of group psychotherapy among mental health providers may also contribute to the lack of available research.

It is also worth noting that studies finding neutral or negative results are often unpublished. This publication bias could account for the lack of available evidence. The research reports do not consistently report therapist qualifications; however, board certificates in group psychotherapy and CBT are undeniably variables available for debate. The inclusion of uncontrolled trials limits these findings as well. Although the above limitations are not exhaustive, they do provide necessary caveats to future generalizations.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

Perhaps the most important information to gain from future research is that of treatment outcomes. Studies that include a detailed outcome evaluation could reveal patient satisfaction, efficacy, and financial considerations. In the presence of adequate supportive data, GCBT could contribute outcome data regarding trauma survivor symptom normalization, peer support formation, access to care, treatment efficiency, and health care resources utilization. As noted in Barrera and colleagues, future analysis will require a greater volume of trials with an overall increase in methodological rigor.⁸

Current research has demonstrated a solid base from which to spawn specific treatment protocols. The available research is investigational in terms of treatment procedures. Replication of these studies could dictate treatment protocol and contribute substantively to future VA and DoD CPG updates. Future researchers should consider the use of a standard PTSD symptom assessment tool to make interstudy comparisons more meaningful. The length of treatment and exposure elements should be targeted specifically in future research as these components currently vary the most.

The military represents an obvious avenue for future research due to increased PTSD diagnosis in recent years. Although the etiology of the increase in PTSD is unclear and most likely multifactorial (decreased resilience, increased awareness, increased pursuit of secondary gains, etc), the need for treatment options is apparent.¹ Group cohesion has been shown to be a core component of successful group psychotherapy, so military members who are accustomed to unit cohesion might represent a uniquely suitable population for this modality.¹⁵ Interestingly and for reasons not currently understood, veterans do not see effects of therapy as large as their civilian counterparts.⁸ This underscores the need for further evaluation of military-specific outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the available evidence is not robust, results do support the careful use of GCBT as an effective treatment for PTSD symptom reduction.⁸ Group psychotherapy has been generally regarded as an efficacious and cost-effective method to achieve similar outcomes to individual therapy. Increasing PTSD prevalence compels mental health care providers to explore all available treatment options. The potential for GCBT as an option is exciting, especially for mental health providers and those with limited resources. Rising health care standards and the current national fiscal situation is dictating a reevaluation of treatment options; so perhaps all health care providers will soon consider the use of GCBT.

As with any group assignment, the clinician should carefully consider the individual’s suitability and desire for group participation.¹⁶ With GCBT, providers could facilitate the relief of relentless apprehension and functional impairment for several patients simultaneously. Although there are many details left to explore regarding the use of GCBT for PTSD, the therapy’s foundation for use as a PTSD treatment is apparent.

Author disclosures
The author reports no actual or potential conflicts of interest with regard to this article.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Federal Practitioner, Frontline Medical Communications Inc., the U.S. Government, or any of its agencies. This article may discuss unlabeled or investigational use of certain drugs. Please review the complete prescribing information for specific drugs or drug combinations—including indications, contraindications, warnings, and adverse effects—before administering pharmacologic therapy to patients.