(BSG)- Led Multisociety Consensus Care Bundle for the Early Clinical
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
GUIDELINES British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG)- led multisociety consensus care bundle for the early clinical management of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding Keith Siau ,1,2,3 Sarah Hearnshaw,4 Adrian J Stanley,5 Lise Estcourt,6 Ashraf Rasheed,7,8 Andrew Walden,9,10 Mo Thoufeeq,11 Mhairi Donnelly,5 Russell Drummond,5 Andrew M Veitch,12 Sauid Ishaq,3,13 Allan John Morris5,14 For numbered affiliations see end ABSTRACT evidence- based interventions and drive quality of article. Medical care bundles improve standards of improvement and patient outcomes in AUGIB. Correspondence to care and patient outcomes. Acute upper Dr Allan John Morris, Glasgow gastrointestinal bleeding (AUGIB) is a common Royal Infirmary, Glasgow G4 0SF, medical emergency which has been consistently INTRODUCTION UK; john. morris@ ggc. scot. nhs. uk Acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding associated with suboptimal care. We aimed to (AUGIB) is a common medical emer- British Society of develop a multisociety care bundle centred on gency in the UK with an estimated inci- Gastroenterology Conference the early management of AUGIB. 2019 dence of 134 per 100 000 population,1 Commissioned by the British Society of roughly equating to one presentation Gastroenterology (BSG), a UK multisociety task every 6 min. Mortality following AUGIB force was assembled to produce an evidence- over the last two decades has remained based and consensus- based care bundle detailing high at approximately 10%,2 with several key interventions to be performed within UK- wide audits revealing poor stand- 24 hours of presentation with AUGIB. A modified ards of care.2 3 Multiple guidelines have Delphi process was conducted with stakeholder been developed in an attempt to define representation from BSG, Association of Upper quality standards in AUGIB and improve Gastrointestinal Surgeons, Society for Acute patient outcomes.4–6 These unanimously Medicine and the National Blood Transfusion acknowledge the importance of timely Service of the UK. A formal literature search was management within the first 24 hours as conducted and international AUGIB guidelines early resuscitation and endoscopy corre- reviewed. Evidence was appraised using the late with improved outcomes. Despite Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, this, the 2015 UK National Confidential Development and Evaluation tool and statements Enquiry into Patient Outcome and Death were formulated and subjected to anonymous (NCEPOD) audit highlighted ongoing electronic voting to achieve consensus. Accepted variations in practice and suboptimal statements were eligible for incorporation care in patients with AUGIB.7 As such, into the final bundle after a separate round strategic initiatives remain necessary to of voting. The final version of the care bundle address these long- standing deficiencies was reviewed by the BSG Clinical Services and and drive sustained improvement. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) Standards Committee and approved by all 2020. Re- use permitted under The care bundle approach to medical care CC BY- NC. No commercial re- stakeholder groups. has become increasingly popular in recent use. See rights and permissions. Consensus was reached on 19 statements; these years.8 Care bundles comprise a pragmatic Published by BMJ. culminated in 14 corresponding care bundle series of evidence- based interventions, To cite: Siau K, Hearnshaw S, items, contained within 6 management domains: which when performed together, lead to Stanley AJ, et al. Frontline Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk assessment, Rx a better outcome than if performed indi- Gastroenterology Epub ahead 8 9 of print: [please include Day (Treatment), Refer and Review. vidually. Developed in 2004, the Sepsis Month Year]. doi:10.1136/ A multisociety care bundle for AUGIB has Six bundle has achieved UK-wide imple- flgastro-2019-101395 been developed to facilitate timely delivery of mentation and has been shown to reduce Siau K, et al. Frontline Gastroenterology 2020;0:1–13. doi:10.1136/flgastro-2019-101395 1 mortality.10 The 2014 British Society of Gastroenter- Scale (A: strongly agree, B: agree, C: neither agree nor ology (BSG) and British Association for the Study of the disagree, D: disagree, E: strongly disagree) following Liver (BASL) care bundle for decompensated chronic evidence appraisal for each statement. The number liver disease was released in response to NCEPOD voting for each level was recorded and presented with recommendations,11 and has improved adherence to each statement. A threshold of 80% agreement (rated standards of care and reduced length of stay (LOS).12 A or B) was defined a priori to accept a statement; In endoscopy, implementation of the Quality Improve- statement revisions were permitted if they did not meet ment in Colonoscopy bundle led to improvements in this threshold. Each statement underwent up to three adenoma detection rates.13 Thus, care bundles can facil- rounds of voting. Accepted statements were considered itate the timely delivery of minimum standards of care, for incorporation into the final bundle after a sepa- which can ultimately improve patient outcomes.8 14 We rate voting process. A level of recommendation (weak/ propose that a consensus evidence- based care bundle strong) was assigned to each statement. Although it is specific for AUGIB and deliverable within the first standard practice to align recommendations with the 24 hours of presentation could improve the care and level of evidence, statements could receive discordant clinical outcomes of patients with AUGIB. We there- recommendations (eg, strong recommendation for fore aimed to produce an evidence and consensus- based low- quality evidence) if the perceived benefit in clinical care bundle for the first 24 hours from presentation in practice outweighed the paucity of available evidence. patients with suspected AUGIB. The bundle is intended The final version of the care bundle was reviewed and to be used by all healthcare professionals involved in the approved by stakeholder groups, including the BSG initial management of patients with AUGIB. Detailed Clinical Services and Standards Committee, prior to endoscopic management is beyond the scope of ward- submission for publication. Focused top- up searches based care and is therefore not included. were also performed in October 2019 to ensure that the evidence was updated prior to publication. METHODS The UK AUGIB care bundle was developed as part of CONSENSUS STATEMENTS the BSG Endoscopy Quality Improvement Programme Following evidence review, the modified Delphi 15 (EQIP). The steering committee comprised a multi- process reached consensus on 19 recommendations disciplinary group of experts from BSG, Association (table 1). These culminated into 14 corresponding care of Upper Gastrointestinal Surgeons, National Health bundle items (figure 1), enveloped within six manage- Service (NHS) Blood and Transplant, Society for Acute ment domains: Recognition, Resuscitation, Risk strat- Medicine, with trainee and patient representation. ification, Rx (Treatment), Referral and Review (post- The consensus process involved a modified Delphi endoscopy care). method. Members were assigned to working groups corresponding to different sections of the care bundle. RECOGNITION Sequentially, these comprised: Recognition, Resus- We recommend that patients with haematemesis, citation, Risk Stratification, Rx (Treatment), Refer melaena or coffee ground vomiting (CGV) in the absence (referral for endoscopy) and Review (postendoscopic of an alternate diagnosis (eg, bowel obstruction) trigger management). Each working group framed questions the AUGIB bundle relevant to pre- endoscopic and postendoscopic inter- Level of evidence: Low ventions using the Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Level of recommendation: Strong Outcome (PICO) method, and performed literature Agreement: 100% searches on PUBMED, EMBASE, and Cochrane Data- Bundle recommendation: Trigger bundle if haematem- base of Systematic Reviews in June 2018. International esis, melaena or CGV (100% agreement) AUGIB guidelines were also reviewed. For guidelines Haematemesis and melaena are recognised symp- produced before 2013, searches were updated using toms of AUGIB. CGV refers to emesis that contains original search strategies to identify more recent publi- dark altered blood not due to any other cause such cations. Based on the PICO tables, statements relevant as bowel obstruction or sepsis. The appropriateness to early AUGIB management were formulated and of including CGV as a trigger for the AUGIB bundle the level of evidence for each statement appraised in was evaluated. A recent study (n=3012) prospectively accordance with Grading of Recommendations, Assess- compared outcomes following presentation with CGV ment, Development and Evaluations methodology.16 compared with overt haematemesis and/or melaena.17 Each statement was paired with a care bundle item. The Clinical severity measured using risk stratification tools process was peer- reviewed through multiple telecon- were all significantly lower in the isolated haematem- ferences. Once working groups had formulated initial esis group than in the CGV group, as CGV was asso- evidence- based statements, a face- to- face meeting with ciated with older patients with comorbidity. Although anonymised electronic voting was arranged to evaluate haematemesis was independently associated with consensus with statements and care bundle items. The higher rates of haemostatic intervention and rebleeding level of agreement