Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Moore R
Moore R
Moore R
Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) degrades ondansetron, the most common antiemetic at base-
patient experience and increases healthcare costs. line, was not available in the early postimplementa-
Estimates of PONV range from 10% to 80%. The Apfel tion period, which may partially explain the initial
Simplified Score is an evidence-based instrument for increase in PONV. While ondansetron was unavail-
determining individual risk of PONV. Scoring enables able, providers began using 3 other antiemetics, a
anesthesia providers to match antiemetic strategies practice that persisted once intravenous ondansetron
with the calculated risk of PONV. Data were collected returned. The Apfel score is an evidence-based tool
across 3 times. After the Apfel scoring system was that providers can use to reduce the risk of PONV.
automated into the electronic medical record, provid- This electronic tool and the reminder cards have been
ers were more likely to increase PONV prophylaxis shared across the US Military Health System, foster-
for patients at highest risk and reduce prophylaxis ing an organizational culture that values targeted
for patients at lowest risk. Rates of PONV remained prophylaxis for PONV.
similar at baseline (34.7%) and in the early post-
implementation period (38.8%); a modest reduction Keywords: Acupuncture, medication shortage, PONV,
was observed in the final period (26.5%). Intravenous postoperative nausea and vomiting.
P
ostoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) rep- that providers will change their antiemetic prophylaxis
resents a substantial physical and financial bur- strategy after receiving education on the Apfel score.5,6
den to patients and healthcare systems. In the Therefore, the use of educational sessions to instruct
US Military Health System, patients with PONV healthcare personnel on the correct use of the Apfel
stay longer and consume more services imme- Simplified Score is important when implementing this
diately after surgery than those without PONV.1 As many practice change. The electronic medical record (EMR) is
as 1 in 3 patients experience PONV, but this unaccept- a readily accessible medium to encourage the use of the
ably high rate can be reduced by matching prophylaxis to Apfel score, and EMR-based reminders have been shown
expected risk. to increase adherence to PONV prophylaxis guidelines.7-9
Widely used in research, the Apfel Simplified Score Such reminders should be enduring, since adherence to
is a validated tool to evaluate risk of PONV. Using 4 in- guidelines and PONV rates return to preimplementation
dependent risk factors—female sex, nonsmoking status, levels when these tools are withdrawn.8,9
history of PONV or motion sickness, and postoperative The addition of an enduring PONV scoring tool and
opioid use—the score is easy for providers to remember training of providers to include evidence when making
and calculate at the bedside. Each of these risk factors clinical decisions will benefit the military healthcare
adds 20% risk of PONV, with the baseline risk never less system and the patients it serves. Training staff is ex-
than 10%; 0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 factors correspond to 10%, pected to produce measurable effects at the facility level,
20%, 40%, 60%, and 80% risk, respectively. Notably, in terms of PONV risk reduction and staff adherence to
the maximum predictable risk is 80%. Each preventive guidelines for PONV prevention. Military staff frequently
treatment can reduce the risk of PONV by approximately relocate, so these interventions should be compatible for
26%.2,3 Targeting high-risk patients with preventive use at any military location to provide for true sustain-
measures also avoids medication overuse.4 Considering ment. We hypothesized that implementing the Apfel
the high frequency of medication shortages in modern scoring system would result in the reduction of PONV
practice, using the right medication for the right patient for patients at Naval Hospital Jacksonville in Florida and
is increasingly important. simultaneously improve medication practices as provid-
Results of previous investigations have demonstrated ers adhere to the guidelines for PONV prevention.
measured. Odds ratios (ORs) with confidence intervals PONV risk Phase 0 Phase 1 Phase 2
were used to further measure the strength of association. Low (Apfel score 0-1) 1.5 0.5 1.4
The project was deemed exempt by the Navy Medicine Moderate (Apfel score 2) 1.5 1.2 1.2
East institutional review board designee. Analysis was per-
High (Apfel score ≥3) 1.9 1.5 2.0
formed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
(SPSS) version 22.0 for Mac (IBM Corp). Table 2. Mean Number of Antiemetics Administered
During Each Phase
Results Abbreviation: PONV, postoperative nausea and vomiting.
• Provider Adherence. Chi-squared tests were used to de-
termine association between provider adherence and the of baseline cases, 67% of early cases, and 59% of final
3 phases of data collection. A significant association was cases were appropriately medicated (P=.006).
found between the baseline and early phases (P=.002). • Antiemetic Interventions. There were 9 interventions
Provider adherence significantly improved between these tracked across each phase: haloperidol, promethazine,
2 phases (OR=2.31, 95% CI=1.33-4.04). Provider adher- aprepitant, scopolamine, total IV anesthesia, IV ondan-
ence was sustained in the final phase, with a nonsignifi- setron, oral ondansetron, dexamethasone, and acupres-
cant decrease in adherence between the early and final sure, and all were used except acupressure (Figure
phases (P=.17, OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.42-1.19). 3). Ondansetron and dexamethasone were the most
• Rates of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting. Most commonly administered antiemetics across all periods.
patients scored in Apfel categories 1 to 3 (Table 1). Intravenous ondansetron and IV dexamethasone were
Patients with higher Apfel scores experienced higher the only interventions regularly administered in the
rates of PONV in the recovery room (Figure 2). The inci- baseline group. Intravenous ondansetron was unavailable
dence of PONV was 34.7% at baseline, 38.8% in the early for entire time captured by the early phase, because of a
phase, and 26.5% in the final phase. There were no sig- nationwide shortage that persisted for several months.
nificant differences in PONV rates between the baseline An equipotent dose of oral ondansetron (8 mg) had been
and final phase (P=.31, OR=1.18, 95% CI=0.59-2.33) or listed as an alternative to IV ondansetron (4 mg) for both
between the early and final phase (P=.13, OR=1.60, 95% the early and final phases. During the final phase, IV
CI=0.84-3.07). In appropriately treated patients, rates ondansetron became available again but was not admin-
of PONV were lower in the final phase compared with istered as frequently as it had been in the baseline group.
the early phase (P=.044, OR=2.13, 95% CI=0.95-4.85). Oral ondansetron was listed only as a substitute for IV
Furthermore, following the initial training, the propor- ondansetron, and no patients received a combination of
tion of appropriately medicated patients increased; 47% oral and IV ondansetron.
Figure 5. Number of Antiemetics Administered to Patients in Each Apfel Category, in Early Phase
Patients with 0 or 1 risk factors, which translates to a ics. Patients at moderate risk of PONV were more likely
0 or 1 Apfel score, are at lowest risk of PONV. The guide- to receive 2 antiemetics at baseline and 1 antiemetic in
lines suggest these patients may receive no antiemetics. either the early or final phase (see Table 2; Figures 4-6).
Antiemetic prophylaxis for these patients decreased Patients with 3 or more risk factors are at the highest
overall (Table 2; Figures 4-6). Low-risk patients received risk of PONV, and the guidelines indicate these patients
the greatest mean quantity of antiemetic interventions at should receive 3 or more antiemetics. However, at
baseline (1.5), the fewest during the early phase (0.5), baseline, none of the patients with an Apfel score of 3
with a near return to baseline in the final phase (1.4). received 3 or more antiemetics, and they received a mean
Patients with 2 risk factors, and given an Apfel score of only 1.9 antiemetics (see Figure 4). In the early phase,
of 2, are at moderate risk of PONV. The guidelines nearly one-third of high-risk patients received 3 or more
suggest these patients should receive 1 to 2 antiemet- antiemetics (see Figure 5). By the final phase, antiemetic
ics, and across phases, most study participants did. At prophylaxis for these patients had increased to an average
baseline, moderate-risk patients received an average of of 2.0 antiemetics (see Table 2), but nearly half of these
1.5 antiemetics. In the early and final phases, these pa- high-risk patients had received 3 or more antiemetics
tients received slightly less, an average of 1.2 antiemet- (see Figure 6).