Evidence-based Quality Improvement Research Articles

Fostering Resilience and Well-Being Among New Graduate Nurses.

Nearly one third of the U.S. nursing workforce is considering leaving their current job, with millennials new to the role most likely to leave. Newly licensed registered nurses (NLRNs) often feel unprepared and overwhelmed, contributing to the risk of turnover in this workforce segment and amplifying unstable healthcare environments. This evidence-based quality improvement project integrated a resilience and well-being program into a nurse residency program, improving resilience and well-being in NLRNs transitioning to professional practice.

Fostering the discussion of planetary health in occupational therapy and physiotherapy.

Occupational therapists and physiotherapists aim to promote health, prevent various diseases and help people in their rehabilitation processes. So far, there is a paucity of understanding of the big picture of how the new paradigm of planetary health (PH) is connected to the education and practice of these professionals. This research aimed to address this gap by investigating and deploying a bibliometric analysis to elucidate the pivotal role of occupational therapists and physiotherapists in addressing PH challenges. The ultimate goal is to construct a comprehensive framework crosschecking the bibliometric analysis and the collection of 10 case studies selected by experts to outline how best practices in occupational therapy and physiotherapy, related to the three pillars of sustainability and the UN's Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), can contribute to increasing PH. The bibliometric analysis revealed four major research strands: 1) enhancing patient care and quality of life; 2) integrating sustainability in health care and rehabilitation; 3) professional development and clinical competence; and 4) evidence-based practice and quality improvement. Moreover, further temporal analysis revealed how the topic evolved, from advancing evidence-based practice and clinical effectiveness, exploring the strengthening of health care and person-centred practices, to connecting the topic to aspects also predicted by the SDGs, such as integrating environmental and climate concerns in therapy and addressing psychological and self-care impacts on health. The case studies confirmed this trend, and a framework of PH in occupational therapy and physiotherapy through the lens of the SDGs was developed to support future research and practitioners in advancing this research field. Occupational therapists and physiotherapists are essential players in public health and can integrate sustainability at every level of practice, from using resources during therapy sessions to advocating for more sustainable lifestyles.

The Effect of Music on Postoperative Agitation, Pain, and Opioid Use among Patients Undergoing Total Knee Replacement

BackgroundPostoperative pain and agitation is an ongoing issue among patients undergoing total knee replacement (TKR). Use of complementary therapies such as music may improve outcomes when combined with medical therapy. AimThe purpose of this quality improvement (QI) initiative was to evaluate postoperative use of classical music among adult patients who have undergone TKR on reported agitation, pain, and opioid use. DesignA prospective evidence-based QI initiative. SettingA midwestern hospital post-anesthesia care unit. ParticipantsPostoperative patients who had undergone TKR. MethodsClassical piano music was played postoperatively using an MP3 device. Adult patients who were undergoing TKR were consecutively offered music during their recovery period in the PACU. Agitation was measured using the Richmond Agitation Sedation Score (RASS). Patient perceived pain was measured on a scale of 0-10 with 0 being no pain and 10 being extreme pain. Opioid use was measured using the morphine milligram equivalents (MME). FindingsA total of (n=40) patients received music and (n=50) patients received standard care without music. RASS was significantly lower in the music group than in the baseline non-music group X2 (1, N = 89) = 17.8, p < .001. Patient reported pain scores were significantly lower in the music group, 3.98(SD = 2.71), compared to the baseline non-music group, 6.27(SD = 2.60). Opioid use was also significantly decreased in the music group to MME 9.51(SD = 8.62) compared to the baseline non-music group 13.38 (SD = 9.71). ConclusionMusic is an effective nonpharmacologic intervention in decreasing agitation, pain, and opioid use among patients undergoing TKR. These findings provide evidence for nurses to incorporate music as an adjunctive approach to enhance the patient's experience and improve outcomes.

Enhancing Primary Care and Mental Health Integration for Women Veterans with Complex Healthcare Needs Using Evidence-Based Quality Improvement.

Women Veterans with co-morbid medical and mental health conditions face persistent barriers accessing high-quality health care. Evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) offers a systematic approach to implementing new care models that can address care gaps for women Veterans. This study examines factors associated with the successful deployment of EBQI within integrated health systems to improve primary care for women Veterans with complex mental health needs. Following a 12-site (8 EBQI, 4 control) cluster randomized study to evaluate EBQI effectiveness, we conducted an in-depth case study analysis of one women's health clinic that used EBQI to improve integrated primary care-mental health services for women Veterans. Our study sample included providers, program managers, and clinic staff at a women Veteran's health clinic that, at the time of the study, had one Primary Care and Mental Health Integration team and one women's health primary care provider serving 800 women. We analyzed interviews conducted 12 months, 24 months, and 4 years post-implementation and call summaries between the clinic and support team. We conducted qualitative thematic analysis of interview and call summary data to identify EBQI elements, clinic characteristics, and reported challenges and successes within project development and execution. The clinic harnessed core EBQI elements (multi-level stakeholder engagement, data-driven progress-monitoring, PDSA cycles, sharing results) to accomplish pre-defined project goals, strengthen inter-disciplinary partnerships, and bolster team confidence. Clinic characteristics that facilitated implementation success included prior QI experience and an organizational culture responsive to innovation, while lack of pre-existing guidelines and limited access to centralized databases posed implementation challenges. Successful practice transformation emerges through the interaction of evidence-based methods and site-specific characteristics. Examining how clinic characteristics support or impede EBQI adaptation can facilitate efforts to improve care within integrated health systems.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss.

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with explanation of the support in the literature, evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantationcandidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life (QOL). (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related QOL at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KAS as an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

Clinical Practice Guideline: Age-Related Hearing Loss Executive Summary.

Age-related hearing loss (ARHL) is a prevalent but often underdiagnosed and undertreated condition among individuals aged 50 and above. It is associated with various sociodemographic factors and health risks including dementia, depression, cardiovascular disease, and falls. While the causes of ARHL and its downstream effects are well defined, there is a lack of priority placed by clinicians as well as guidance regarding the identification, education, and management of this condition. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the identification and management of ARHL. These opportunities are communicated through clear actionable statements with an explanation of the support in the literature, the evaluation of the quality of the evidence, and recommendations on implementation. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 50 years and older. The target audience is all clinicians in all care settings. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the Guideline Development Group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of ARHL. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. The GDG made strong recommendations for the following key action statements (KASs): (KAS 4) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should obtain or refer to a clinician who can obtain an audiogram. (KAS 8) Clinicians should offer, or refer to a clinician who can offer, appropriately fit amplification to patients with ARHL. (KAS 9) Clinicians should refer patients for an evaluation of cochlear implantation candidacy when patients have appropriately fit amplification and persistent hearing difficulty with poor speech understanding. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should screen patients aged 50 years and older for hearing loss at the time of a health care encounter. (KAS 2) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should examine the ear canal and tympanic membrane with otoscopy or refer to a clinician who can examine the ears for cerumen impaction, infection, or other abnormalities. (KAS 3) If screening suggests hearing loss, clinicians should identify sociodemographic factors and patient preferences that influence access to and utilization of hearing health care. (KAS 5) Clinicians should evaluate and treat or refer to a clinician who can evaluate and treat patients with significant asymmetric hearing loss, conductive or mixed hearing loss, or poor word recognition on diagnostic testing. (KAS 6) Clinicians should educate and counsel patients with hearing loss and their family/care partner(s) about the impact of hearing loss on their communication, safety, function, cognition, and quality of life. (KAS 7) Clinicians should counsel patients with hearing loss on communication strategies and assistive listening devices. (KAS 10) For patients with hearing loss, clinicians should assess if communication goals have been met and if there has been improvement in hearing-related quality of life at a subsequent health care encounter or within 1 year. The GDG offered the following KASas an option: (KAS 11) Clinicians should assess hearing at least every 3 years in patients with known hearing loss or with reported concern for changes in hearing.

A scoping review of the questionnaires used for the assessment of the perception of undergraduate students of the learning environment in healthcare professions education programs.

The learning environment (LE) includes social interactions, organizational culture, structures, and physical and virtual spaces that influence the learning experiences of students. Despite numerous studies exploring the perception of healthcare professional students (HCPS) of their LE, the validity evidence of the utilized questionnaires remains unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify questionnaires used to examine the perception of undergraduate HCPS of their LE and to assess their validity evidence. Five key concepts were used: (1) higher education; (2) questionnaire; (3) LE; (4) perception; and (5) health professions (HP). PubMed, ERIC, ProQuest, and Cochrane databases were searched for studies developing or adapting questionnaires to examine LE. This review employed the APERA standards of validity evidence and Beckman et al. (J Gen Intern Med 20:1159-1164, 2005) interpretation of these standards according to 5 categories: content, internal structure, response process, relation to other variables, and consequences. Out of 41 questionnaires included in this review, the analysis revealed a predominant emphasis on content and internal structure categories. However, less than 10% of the included questionnaires provided information in relation to other variables, consequences, and response process categories. Most of the identified questionnaires received extensive coverage in the fields of medicine and nursing, followed by dentistry. This review identified diverse questionnaires utilized for examining the perception of students of their LE across different HPs. Given the limited validity evidence for existing questionnaires, future research should prioritize the development and validation of psychometric measures. This will ultimately ensure sound and evidence-based quality improvement measures of the LE in HP education programs.

The Mountain Model for Evidence-Based Practice Quality Improvement Initiatives.

This article introduces the Mountain Model, the first conceptual model for evidence-based practice quality improvement (EBPQI) initiatives. The Mountain Model merges modern evidence-based practice (EBP) and quality improvement (QI) paradigm principles into a unified conceptual framework with the goal of disseminating and sustaining EBPQI projects across health care and related settings. The model was developed within the nursing discipline, but is designed for transdisciplinary implementation through interprofessional teams.

Clinical Inquiry and Problem Identification.

This is the second article in a new series designed to provide readers with insight into educating nurses about evidence-based decision-making. It builds on AJN's award-winning previous series-Evidence-Based Practice, Step by Step and EBP 2.0: Implementing and Sustaining Change (to access both series, go to http://links.lww.com/AJN/A133). This follow-up series will address how to teach and facilitate learning about the evidence-based practice (EBP) and quality improvement (QI) processes and how they impact health care quality. This series is relevant for all nurses interested in EBP and QI, especially DNP faculty and students. The brief case scenario included in each article describes one DNP student's journey.

Caring for hearts and minds: a quality improvement approach to individualized developmental care in the cardiac intensive care unit.

Infants with congenital heart disease (CHD) are at high risk for developmental differences which can be explained by the cumulative effect of medical complications along with sequelae related to the hospital and environmental challenges. The intervention of individualized developmental care (IDC) minimizes the mismatch between the fragile newborn brain's expectations and the experiences of stress and pain inherent in the intensive care unit (ICU) environment. A multidisciplinary group of experts was assembled to implement quality improvement (QI) to increase the amount of IDC provided, using the Newborn Individualized Developmental Care and Assessment Program (NIDCAP), to newborn infants in the cardiac ICU. A Key Driver Diagram was created, PDSA cycles were implemented, baseline and ongoing measurements of IDC were collected, and interventions were provided. We collected 357 NIDCAP audits of bedside IDC. Improvement over time was noted in the amount of IDC including use of appropriate lighting, sound management, and developmentally supportive infant bedding and clothing, as well as in promoting self-regulation, therapeutic positioning, and caregiving facilitation. The area of family participation and holding of infants in the CICU was the hardest to support change over time, especially with the most ill infants. Infants with increased medical complexity were less likely to receive IDC. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based QI intervention demonstrated that the implementation of IDC in the NIDCAP model improved over time using bedside auditing of IDC.

Achieving optimal cord management: a multidisciplinary quality improvement initiative

Optimal cord management (OCM), defined as waiting at least 60 seconds (s) before clamping the umbilical cord after birth, is an evidence-based intervention that improves outcomes for both term and...

What can nurses learn from patient's needs and wishes when developing an evidence-based quality improvement learning culture? A qualitative study.

Patient participation is fundamental in nursing care and has yielded benefits for patient outcomes. However, despite their compassionate care approach, nurses do not always incorporate patients' needs and wish into evidence-based practice, quality improvement or learning activities. Therefore, a shift to continuous quality improvement based on evidence-based practice is necessary to enhance the quality of care. The patient's opinion is an essential part of this process. To establish a more sustainable learning culture for evidence-based quality improvement, it is crucial that nurses learn alongside their patients. However, to promote this, nurses require a deeper understanding of patients' care preferences. To explore patients' needs and wishes towards being involved in care processes that nurses can use in developing an evidence-based quality improvement learning culture. A qualitative study was conducted in two hospital departments and one community care team. In total, 18 patients were purposefully selected for individual semi-structured interviews with an average of 15 min. A framework analysis based on the fundamental of care framework was utilised to analyse the data deductively. In addition, inductive codes were added to patients' experiences beyond the framework. For reporting this study, the SRQR guideline was used. Participants needed a compassionate nurse who established and sustained a trusting relationship. They wanted nurses to be present and actively involved during the care delivery. Shared decision-making improved when nurses offered fair, clear and tailored information. Mistrust or a disrupted nurse-patient relationship was found to be time-consuming and challenging to restore. Results confirmed the importance of a durable nurse-patient relationship and showed the consequences of nurses' communication on shared decision-making. Insights into patients' care preferences are essential to stimulate the development of an evidence-based quality improvement learning culture within nursing teams and for successful implementation processes.

Expansion of the Fertility Preservation Program to All Newly Diagnosed Prepubertal Patients with Cancer at a Pediatric Hospital.

Background: As the majority of pediatric patients with cancer survive their disease, generating a population of over 500,000 childhood cancer survivors in the United States, it is imperative to minimize the lifelong consequences of treatment, which include temporary or permanent infertility caused by certain cancer treatments. A fertility consultation at diagnosis can provide patients and families with the opportunity to be informed regarding the likelihood of gonadal dysfunction and to consider fertility preservation. Method: After our pediatric hospital started to offer tissue cryopreservation, we initiated this evidence-based interventional quality improvement project. Our primary aim was to ensure that all newly diagnosed prepubertal patients with cancer who met the criteria for fertility tissue preservation were correctly identified and offered an educational consultation and preservation. Results: Between July 15, 2022 and October 30, 2022, 54 patients' treatment plans were evaluated to determine treatment-related infertility risk using the Oncofertility Consortium Pediatric Initiative Network's Risk Assessment tool. Fifteen patients were at a high level of significantly increased risk and 13 were eligible for consultation. Seven (46%) patients and their families received a consultation. Initiation of treatment before referral was the primary reason for lack of consultation. Six of seven patients receiving consultation (86%) elected to undergo preservation. Preservation procedures did not cause a delay in starting treatment for those patients. Discussion: A fertility preservation program with established policies and processes can increase the likelihood that prepubertal patients at high risk for infertility are correctly identified, educated, and offered preservation.

Trends in publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terminology (2013-2022).

This article explored the publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terminology to determine usage and discuss options for low usage terms. A plethora of terms describe the scholarship of evidence-based healthcare. Several terms are synonyms, creating redundancy and confusion. The abundance and overlap of terms may impede the discovery of evidence. This discursive article explored and discussed publication impact of evidence-based healthcare terms. Evidence-based healthcare terms were identified, and their 10-year (2013-2022) publication impact was assessed in the CINAHL and Medline databases. A card sort method was also used to identify terms with low usage. A total of 18/32 terms were included in the review. The terms evidence-based practice, quality improvement, research and translational research were the most highly published terms. Publication data were presented yearly over a 10-year period. Most terms increased in publication use over time, except for three terms whose use decreased. Several terms related to translational research have multiple synonyms. It remains unknown whether these terms are interchangeable and possibly redundant, or if there are nuanced differences between terms. We suggest a follow-up review in 3-5 years to identify publication trends to assess context and terms with continued low publication usage. Terms with persistent low usage should be considered for retirement in the reporting of scholarly activities. Additionally, terms with increasing publication trends should be treated as emerging terms that contribute to evidence-based healthcare terminology. Confusion about the use of appropriate terminology may hinder progress in the scholarship of evidence-based healthcare. We encourage scholars to be aware of publication impact as it relates to the use of specific terminology and be purposeful in the selection of terms used in scholarly projects and publications.

DNP-Authored Articles in Peer-Reviewed Journals 2011-2021.

With an increasing number of doctor of nursing practice (DNP) graduates, the volume of peer-reviewed journal publications among DNP-prepared nurses is rising. The primary aim of this study was to quantify, analyze, and categorize DNP-authored peer-reviewed journal publications. A descriptive research design was used to analyze DNP-authored peer-reviewed journal publications in the WorldCat, EBSCO Discovery Service, and PubMed databases from 2011 through 2021. The 3839 journal publications included at least one DNP-prepared nurse author. There were 2495 (65%) publications with a DNP first author, 921 (24%) with a DNP solo author, and 2918 (76%) included publication collaboration. The majority of publications were practice- (40%), nursing- (17%), and education-focused (15%). Science translation in evidence-based practice and quality improvement publications accounted for 24%. This study demonstrates the proliferation of DNP-authored peer-reviewed journal publications, which may indicate an increase in the number of nursing care quality initiatives occurring in the clinical setting.

An Initiative to Prevent Surgical Site Infections After Cesarean Birth With a Quality Improvement Care Bundle

ObjectiveTo reduce surgical site infections (SSIs) after cesarean birth through a bundled care approach. DesignQuality improvement project. Setting/Local ProblemIn a community hospital obstetric unit, an increase in SSIs after cesarean birth was observed. ParticipantsNursing leaders, obstetricians, certified nurse-midwives, physician assistants, nurses, scrub technicians, a nursing professional development specialist, and an infection prevention practitioner. Interventions/MeasuresAn interdisciplinary team was formed in early 2022, and an evidence-based care bundle including practice changes, education for the team, and enhanced education for patients undergoing cesarean birth was developed and implemented after a review of the literature was completed. All cesarean births were tracked pre- and postintervention to determine the rate of SSIs per 1,000 cesarean births. ResultsA decrease in the rate of SSIs after cesarean birth was observed from preintervention (18.2 per 1,000 cesarean births) to postintervention (11.8 per 1,000 cesarean births). ConclusionAn evidence-based quality improvement care bundle using a multidisciplinary team approach was associated with reduced SSIs in an obstetric unit.

Impact of Evidence-Based Quality Improvement on Tailoring VA's Patient-Centered Medical Home Model to Women Veterans' Needs.

Women Veterans' numerical minority, high rates of military sexual trauma, and gender-specific healthcare needs have complicated implementation of comprehensive primary care (PC) under VA's patient-centered medical home model, Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). We deployed an evidence-based quality improvement (EBQI) approach to tailor PACT to meet women Veterans' needs and studied its effects on women's health (WH) care readiness, team-based care, and burnout. We evaluated EBQI effectiveness in a cluster randomized trial with unbalanced random allocation of 12 VAMCs (8 EBQI vs. 4 control). Clinicians/staff completed web-based surveys at baseline (2014) and 24 months (2016). We adjusted for individual-level covariates (e.g., years at VA) and weighted for non-response in difference-in-difference analyses for readiness and team-based care overall and by teamlet type (mixed-gender PC-PACTs vs. women-only WH-PACTs), as well as post-only burnout comparisons. We surveyed all clinicians/staff in general PC and WH clinics. EBQI involved structured engagement of multilevel, multidisciplinary stakeholders at network, VAMC, and clinic levels toward network-specific QI roadmaps. The research team provided QI training, formative feedback, and external practice facilitation, and support for cross-site collaboration calls to VAMC-level QI teams, which developed roadmap-linked projects adapted to local contexts. WH care readiness (confidence providing WH care, self-efficacy implementing PACT for women, barriers to providing care for women, gender sensitivity); team-based care (change-readiness, communication, decision-making, PACT-related QI, functioning); burnout. Overall, EBQI had mixed effects which varied substantively by type of PACT. In PC-PACTs, EBQI increased self-efficacy implementing PACT for women and gender sensitivity, even as it lowered confidence. In contrast, in WH-PACTs, EBQI improved change-readiness, team-based communication, and functioning, and was associated with lower burnout. EBQI effectiveness varied, with WH-PACTs experiencing broader benefits and PC-PACTs improving basic WH care readiness. Lower confidence delivering WH care by PC-PACT members warrants further study. The data in this paper represent results from a cluster randomized controlled trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02039856).

Improving safety and preventing falls using an evidence-based, front-line staff huddling practice: protocol for a pragmatic trial to increase quality of care in State Veterans Homes

IntroductionFalls in nursing homes are a major cause for decreases in residents’ quality of life and overall health. This study aims to reduce resident falls by implementing the LOCK Falls...

Clinical Practice Guideline: Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AITis administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce the risk of harm.The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group (GDG). It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. The GDG made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The GDG made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients'symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitizations, (2) reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions (LRs) to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The GDG offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.

Executive Summary of Clinical Practice Guideline on Immunotherapy for Inhalant Allergy.

Allergen immunotherapy (AIT) is the therapeutic exposure to an allergen or allergens selected by clinical assessment and allergy testing to decrease allergic symptoms and induce immunologic tolerance. Inhalant AITis administered to millions of patients for allergic rhinitis (AR) and allergic asthma (AA) and is most commonly delivered as subcutaneous immunotherapy (SCIT) or sublingual immunotherapy (SLIT). Despite its widespread use, there is variability in the initiation and delivery of safe and effective immunotherapy, and there are opportunities for evidence-based recommendations for improved patient care. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline is to identify quality improvement opportunities and provide clinicians trustworthy, evidence-based recommendations regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. Specific goals of the guideline are to optimize patient care, promote safe and effective therapy, reduce unjustified variations in care, and reduce risk of harm. The target patients for the guideline are any individuals aged 5 years and older with AR, with or without AA, who are either candidates for immunotherapy or treated with immunotherapy for their inhalant allergies. The target audience is all clinicians involved in the administration of immunotherapy. This guideline is intended to focus on evidence-based quality improvement opportunities judged most important by the guideline development group. It is not intended to be a comprehensive, general guide regarding the management of inhaled allergies with immunotherapy. The statements in this guideline are not intended to limit or restrict care provided by clinicians based on their experience and assessment of individual patients. The guideline development group made a strong recommendation that (Key Action Statement [KAS] 10) the clinician performing allergy skin testing or administering AIT must be able to diagnose and manage anaphylaxis. The guideline development group made recommendations for the following KASs: (KAS 1) Clinicians should offer or refer to a clinician who can offer immunotherapy for patients with AR with or without AA if their patients' symptoms are inadequately controlled with medical therapy, allergen avoidance, or both, or have a preference for immunomodulation. (KAS 2A) Clinicians should not initiate AIT for patients who are pregnant, have uncontrolled asthma, or are unable to tolerate injectable epinephrine. (KAS 3) Clinicians should evaluate the patient or refer the patient to a clinician who can evaluate for signs and symptoms of asthma before initiating AIT and for signs and symptoms of uncontrolled asthma before administering subsequent AIT. (KAS 4) Clinicians should educate patients who are immunotherapy candidates regarding the differences between SCIT and SLIT (aqueous and tablet) including risks, benefits, convenience, and costs. (KAS 5) Clinicians should educate patients about the potential benefits of AIT in (1) preventing new allergen sensitization, (2)reducing the risk of developing AA, and (3) altering the natural history of the disease with continued benefit after discontinuation of therapy. (KAS 6) Clinicians who administer SLIT to patients with seasonal AR should offer pre- and co-seasonal immunotherapy. (KAS 7) Clinicians prescribing AIT should limit treatment to only those clinically relevant allergens that correlate with the patient's history and are confirmed by testing. (KAS 9) Clinicians administering AIT should continue escalation or maintenance dosing when patients have local reactions to AIT. (KAS 11) Clinicians should avoid repeat allergy testing as an assessment of the efficacy of ongoing AIT unless there is a change in environmental exposures or a loss of control of symptoms. (KAS 12) For patients who are experiencing symptomatic control from AIT, clinicians should treat for a minimum duration of 3 years, with ongoing treatment duration based on patient response to treatment. The guideline development group offered the following KASs as options: (KAS 2B) Clinicians may choose not to initiate AIT for patients who use concomitant beta-blockers, have a history of anaphylaxis, have systemic immunosuppression, or have eosinophilic esophagitis (SLIT only). (KAS 8) Clinicians may treat polysensitized patients with a limited number of allergens.