Barriers to integrating direct oral anticoagulants into anticoagulation clinic care: A mixedâ methods study

BackgroundOutpatient anticoagulation clinics were initially developed to care for patients taking vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin. There has not been a systematic evaluation of the barriers and facilitators to integrating direct oral anticoagulant (DOAC) care into outpatient anticoagulation clinics.MethodsWe performed a mixed methods study consisting of an online survey of anticoagulation clinic providers and semiâ structured interviews with anticoagulation clinic leaders and managers between March and May of 2017. Interviews were transcribed and coded, exploring for themes around barriers and facilitators to DOAC care within anticoagulation clinics. Survey questions pertaining to the specific themes identified in the interviews were analyzed using summary statistics.ResultsSurvey responses were collected from 159 unique anticoagulation clinics and 20 semiâ structured interviews were conducted. Three primary barriers to DOAC care in the anticoagulation clinic were described by the interviewees: (a) a lack of provider awareness for ongoing monitoring and services provided by the anticoagulation clinic; (b) financial challenges to providing care to DOAC patients in an anticoagulation clinic model; and (c) clinical knowledge versus scope of care by the anticoagulation staff. These themes linked to three key areas of variation, including: (a) the size and hospital affiliation of the anticoagulation clinic; (b) the use of faceâ toâ face versus telephoneâ based care; and (c) the use of nurses or pharmacists in the anticoagulation clinic.ConclusionsAnticoagulation clinics in the United States experience important barriers to integrating DOAC care. These barriers vary based on the clinic size, model for warfarin care, and staff credentials (nursing or pharmacy).Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147845/1/rth212157.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147845/2/rth212157_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/147845/3/rth212157-sup-0001-Supinfo.pd

AREDS Formula, Warfarin, and Bleeding: A Case Report from the Michigan Anticoagulation Quality Improvement Initiative

Importance. The anticoagulant warfarin has been shown to interact with other medications, vitamin K containing foods, and over-the-counter products. These interactions may inhibit or potentiate the effect of warfarin, resulting in serious clotting or bleeding events. Observations. We report the case of an 84-year-old woman with atrial fibrillation, prescribed warfarin in May 2010 for stroke prevention. Her international normalized ratio (INR) was stable until April 2013, when she was prescribed AREDS (Age Related Eye Disease Study) formula pills, an eye vitamin compound, to slow the progression of age-related macular degeneration. This change was not reported to the Anticoagulation Service. Eighteen days later, she presented to the ED with groin and back pain and an INR of 10.4. An abdominal CT revealed a retroperitoneal hemorrhage with extension in multiple muscles. Both warfarin and AREDS were discontinued and the patient was discharged to subacute rehabilitation. This case was reviewed by the Anticoagulation Service and actions were taken to prevent similar adverse events. Conclusions. This report provides an example of the potential danger of supplement use, in this case, AREDS formula, in patients prescribed warfarin, and the importance of communicating medication changes to the providers responsible for warfarin management

Outâ ofâ range INR results lead to increased healthâ care utilization in four large anticoagulation clinics

BackgroundThe impact on healthâ care costs and utilization of a single outâ ofâ range (OOR) INR value not associated with bleeding or thromboembolic complication among chronic warfarinâ treated patients is not well described.MethodsAt four large phoneâ based anticoagulation clinics (total 14 948 patients), warfarinâ treated patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism were retrospectively propensity matched into an OOR INR group (n = 116) and a control group (n = 58). Types and frequency of contacts (eg, phone, voicemail, facsimile) and personnel involved were identified. A prospective time study analysis of 59 OOR and 92 control patients was performed over 8.5 days to record the time required to care for these patients. 2016 USD cost estimates were generated from average salaries.ResultsOOR and inâ range INR patients experienced an average of 4.2 and 3.2 (P < .001) INR lab draws until two sequential tests were in range. OOR INR patients required an average of 5.3 interactions with the anticoagulation clinic vs 3.7 for inâ range INR patients (P < .001). OOR INR patients more often required phone calls, fewer mailed letters, and more often required multiple types of contact than inâ range INR patients. In the prospective analysis, total median time involved for each OOR INR value was 5.1 minutes (IQR 3.7â 9.5) vs 2.9 minutes (IQR 1.8â 5.8) for control INR values (P < .001). At the clinic level, OOR INR values were associated with a yearly staff cost of $17 938 (IQR$8969â $31 391).ConclusionsWe quantified the amount of extra anticoagulation staff effort required to manage warfarinâ treated patients who experience a single OOR INR value without bleeding or thromboembolic complications, which leads to higher healthcare utilization costs.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145286/1/rth212110_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/145286/2/rth212110.pd