A systematic review of strategies to improve prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospitals

Knowledge of thromboprophylaxis guidelines pre- and post-didactic lectures during a venous thromboembolism awareness day at a tertiary-care hospital

BACKGROUND:

Didactic lectures are frequently used to improve compliance with practice guidelines. This study assessed the knowledge of health-care providers (HCPs) at a tertiary-care hospital of its evidence-based thromboprophylaxis guidelines and the impact of didactic lectures on their knowledge.

METHODS:

The hospital launched a multifaceted approach to improve thromboprophylaxis practices, which included posters, a pocket-size guidelines summary and didactic lectures during the annual thromboprophylaxis awareness days. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed to HCPs before and after lectures on thromboprophylaxis guidelines (June 2010). The questionnaire, formulated and validated by two physicians, two nurses and a clinical pharmacist, covered various subjects such as risk stratification, anticoagulant dosing and the choice of anticoagulants in specific clinical situations.

RESULTS:

Seventy-two and 63 HCPs submitted the pre- and post-test, respectively (62% physicians, 28% nurses, from different clinical disciplines). The mean scores were 7.8 ± 2.1 (median = 8.0, range = 2-12, maximum possible score = 15) for the pre-test and 8.4 ± 1.8 for the post-test, P = 0.053. There was no significant difference in the pre-test scores of nurses and physicians (7.9 ± 1.7 and 8.2 ± 2.4, respectively, P = 0.67). For the 35 HCPs who completed the pre- and post-tests, their scores were 7.7 ± 1.7 and 8.8 ± 1.6, respectively, P = 0.003. Knowledge of appropriate anticoagulant administration in specific clinical situations was frequently inadequate, with approximately two-thirds of participants failing to adjust low-molecular-weight heparin doses in patients with renal failure.

CONCLUSIONS:

Education via didactic lectures resulted in a modest improvement of HCPs′ knowledge of thromboprophylaxis guidelines. This supports the need for a multifaceted approach to improve the awareness and implementation of thromboprophylaxis guidelines.

Interventions for implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) show that using thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective and cost-effective. Despite this, prophylactic therapies for VTE are underutilized. System-wide interventions may be more effective to improve the use of VTE prophylaxis than relying on individual providers' prescribing behaviors.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE), assessed in terms of: 1. Increase in the proportion of patients who receive prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis 2. Reduction in risk of symptomatic VTE3. Reduction in risk of asymptomatic VTE4. Safety of the intervention.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Peripheral Vascular Diseases Group Trials Search Co-ordinator (TSC) searched the Group's Specialised Register (last searched July 2010) and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library) 2010, Issue 3. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases (19 April 2010) as well as the reference lists of relevant review articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all studies whose interventions aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis and/or appropriate prophylaxis, decrease the proportion of symptomatic VTE, or decrease the proportion of asymptomatic VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded studies that simply distributed published guidelines and studies whose interventions were not clearly described.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected the following outcomes: the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis (RP), the proportion of patients who received appropriate prophylaxis (RAP) (primary outcomes), and the occurrence of symptomatic VTE, asymptomatic VTE, and safety outcomes such as bleeding. We categorized interventions into education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions. We meta-analyzed RCTs and non-randomized studies (NRS) separately by random effects meta-analysis, and assessed heterogeneity using the I(2)statistic and subgroup analyses. Before analysis, we decided that results would be pooled if three or more studies were available for a particular intervention. We assessed publication bias using funnel plots and cumulative meta-analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 55 studies. One of these reported data in patient-days and could not be quantitatively analyzed with the others. The 54 remaining studies (8 RCTs and 46 NRS) eligible for inclusion in our quantitative synthesis enrolled a total of 78,343 participants. Among RCTs, there were sufficient data to pool results for one primary outcome (received prophylaxis) for the 'alert' intervention. Alerts, such as computerized reminders or stickers on patients' charts, were associated with a risk difference (RD) of 13%, signifying an increase in the proportion of patients who received prophylaxis (95% confidence interval (CI) 1% to 25%). Among NRS, there were sufficient data to pool both primary outcomes for each intervention type. Pooled risk differences for received prophylaxis ranged from 8% to 17%, and for received appropriate prophylaxis ranged from 11% to 19%. Education and alerts were associated with statistically significant increases in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis, and multifaceted interventions were associated with statistically significant increases in prescription of any prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis. Multifaceted interventions had the largest pooled effects. I(2) results showed substantial statistical heterogeneity which was in part explained by patient types and type of hospital. A subgroup analysis showed that multifaceted interventions which included an alert may be more effective at improving rates of prophylaxis and appropriate prophylaxis than those without an alert. Results for VTE and safety outcomes did not show substantial benefits or harms, although most studies were underpowered to assess these outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We reviewed a large number of studies which implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed to improve thromboprophylaxis rates in many settings and patient populations. We found statistically significant improvements in prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts (RCTs) and multifaceted interventions (RCTs and NRS), and improvements in prescription of appropriate prophylaxis in NRS with the use of education, alerts and multifaceted interventions. Multifaceted interventions with an alert component may be the most effective. Demonstrated sources of heterogeneity included patient types and type of hospital. The results of our review will help physicians, nurses, pharmacists, hospital administrators and policy makers make practical decisions about local adoption of specific system-wide measures to improve prevention of VTE, an important public health issue. We did not find a significant benefit for VTE outcomes; however, earlier RCTs assessing the efficacy of thromboprophylaxis which were powered to address these outcomes have demonstrated the benefit of prophylactic therapies and a favourable balance of benefits versus the increased risk of bleeding events.

Are There Any Differences in the Clinical and Economic Outcomes Between US Cancer Patients Receiving Appropriate or Inappropriate Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis?

Prophylaxis is often underused and inappropriately prescribed. This study compares the efficacy and cost of appropriate and partial prophylaxis in cancer patients at risk for VTE.

Impact of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis "smart order set": Improved compliance, fewer events

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects over 700,000 Americans annually. Prophylaxis reduces the risk of VTE by 60% but many patients still do not receive risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis. To improve our institution's VTE prophylaxis performance, we developed mandatory computerized clinical decision support-enabled "smart order sets" that required providers to assess VTE risk factors and contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Using provider responses, the order set recommends evidence-based risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis. To study the impact of our "smart order set" on prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis and clinical outcomes, we conducted a retrospective chart review of consecutive patients admitted to the Medicine service during one month immediately prior to (November 2007) and a single month subsequent to (April 2010) order set launch. Data collection included patient demographics, VTE risk factors, and the use and type of VTE prophylaxis. The pre- and post-implementation cohorts contained 1,000 and 942 patients, respectively. After implementation of the "smart order set", the prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis increased from 65.6% to 90.1% (P < 0.0001). Orders for any form of VTE prophylaxis increased from 76.4% to 95.6% (P < 0.0001). Radiographically documented symptomatic VTE within 90 days of hospital discharge declined from 2.5% to 0.7% (P = 0.002). Preventable harm was completely eliminated (1.1% to 0%, P = 0.001) with no difference in major bleeding or all-cause mortality. A VTE prophylaxis computerized clinical decision support-enabled "smart order set" improved prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis, reduced symptomatic VTE and eliminated preventable harm from VTE without increasing major bleeding.

Rural-urban differences in inpatient quality of care in US Veterans with ischemic stroke

PURPOSE

Differences in stroke care quality for patients in rural and urban locations have been suggested, but whether differences exist across Veteran Administration Medical Centers (VAMCs) is unknown. This study examines whether rural-urban disparities exist in inpatient quality among veterans with acute ischemic stroke.

METHODS

In this retrospective study, inpatient stroke care quality was assessed in a national sample of veterans with acute ischemic stroke using 14 quality indicators (QIs). Rural-Urban Commuting Areas codes defined each VAMC's rural-urban status. A hierarchical linear model assessed the rural-urban differences across the 14 QIs, adjusting for patient and facility characteristics, and clustering within VAMCs.

FINDINGS

Among 128 VAMCs, 18 (14.1%) were classified as rural VAMCs and admitted 284 (7.3%) of the 3,889 ischemic stroke patients. Rural VAMCs had statistically significantly lower unadjusted rates on 6 QIs: Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis, antithrombotic at discharge, antithrombotic at day 2, lipid management, smoking cessation counseling, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale completion, but they had higher rates of stroke education, functional assessment, and fall risk assessment. After adjustment, differences in 2 QIs remained significant-patients treated in rural VAMCs were less likely to receive DVT prophylaxis, but more likely to have documented functional assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment for key demographic, clinical, and facility-level characteristics, there does not appear to be a systematic difference in inpatient stroke quality between rural and urban VAMCs. Future research should seek to understand the few differences in care found that could serve as targets for future quality improvement interventions.

Practices to prevent venous thromboembolism: a brief review

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of preventable harm for hospitalised patients. Over the past decade, numerous intervention types have been implemented in attempts to improve the prescription of VTE prophylaxis in hospitals, with varying degrees of success. We reviewed key articles to assess the efficacy of different types of interventions to improve prescription of VTE prophylaxis for hospitalised patients.

Methods

We conducted a search of MEDLINE for key studies published between 2001 and 2012 of interventions employing education, paper based tools, computerised tools, real time audit and feedback, or combinations of intervention types to improve prescription of VTE prophylaxis for patients in hospital settings. Process outcomes of interest were prescription of any VTE prophylaxis and best practice VTE prophylaxis. Clinical outcomes of interest were any VTE and potentially preventable VTE, defined as VTE occurring in patients not prescribed appropriate prophylaxis.

Results

16 articles were included in this review. Two studies employed education only, four implemented paper based tools, four used computerised tools, two evaluated audit and feedback strategies, and four studies used combinations of intervention types. Individual modalities result in improved prescription of VTE prophylaxis; however, the greatest and most sustained improvements were those that combined education with computerised tools.

Conclusions

Many intervention types have proven effective to different degrees in improving VTE prevention. Provider education is likely a required additional component and should be combined with other intervention types. Active mandatory tools are likely more effective than passive ones. Information technology tools that are well integrated into provider workflow, such as alerts and computerised clinical decision support, can improve best practice prophylaxis use and prevent patient harm resulting from VTE.

A case control study of the implementation of change model versus passive dissemination of practice guidelines for compliance in monitoring for metabolic syndrome

We developed an intervention to improve compliance with guidelines for monitoring metabolic syndrome and compared compliance prior to intervention and three times post-intervention at three community mental health clinics in Texas. One test clinic received intervention and two other clinics served as controls. Fifty random charts were reviewed from each clinic for three specific, 1-2 weeks periods over the course of 18 months. There were significant improvements in the ordering of labs, the presence of lab results in the chart, and documentation of blood pressure, body mass index and waist circumference in the intervention clinic over time in comparison to the control clinics. Documented evidence of physician action with respect to out of range values remained low. Metabolic monitoring is a multi-step process. Removing barriers, creating specific procedures, and dedicating staff resources can improve compliance with monitoring.

Comparison of three risk assessment methods for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major problem for hospitalized patients. Nevertheless, adherence to VTE prophylaxis guidelines is suboptimal, partly because of physicians' neglect due to excessive workload. Simplified risk assessment methods (RAMs) facilitate timely risk stratification and thromboprophylaxis. However, the accuracy of such RAMs has not been extensively studied. Using the prospectively collected data from hospitalized patients of Masih-Daneshvari Hospital, we tested the accuracy of the Goldhaber RAM and the Harinath and St. John RAM for VTE prophylaxis, compared with the eighth edition of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) recommendations. We evaluated 1091 patients. With reference to the ACCP recommendations, both RAMs had high specificities for detection of patients at risk of VTE (97.33 and 99.11%, respectively); however, we found significant interdepartment differences. The Goldhaber RAM had superior accuracy in medical oncology patients (P = 0.03), whereas the Harinath and St. John method was superior among surgical patients (P < 0.001). Overall accuracies of Goldhaber RAM for appropriate VTE risk assessment and for proper detection of at-risk patients were close to 60%. Corresponding figures were close to 70% for the Harinath and St. John method. Simplified VTE prophylaxis RAMs are valuable, especially for transmitting electronic alerts and for timely risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis. Both of the studied RAMs had high specificities and positive-predictive values, minimizing the risk of overprophylaxis. Improving the sensitivity of such RAMs can help for timely risk assessment for a greater array of real-world patients.

Strategies to enhance venous thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients (SENTRY): a pilot cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common preventable cause of mortality in hospitalized medical patients. Despite rigorous randomized trials generating strong recommendations for anticoagulant use to prevent VTE, nearly 40% of medical patients receive inappropriate thromboprophylaxis. Knowledge-translation strategies are needed to bridge this gap.

METHODS

We conducted a 16-week pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) to determine the proportion of medical patients that were appropriately managed for thromboprophylaxis (according to the American College of Chest Physician guidelines) within 24 hours of admission, through the use of a multicomponent knowledge-translation intervention. Our primary goal was to determine the feasibility of conducting this study on a larger scale. The intervention comprised clinician education, a paper-based VTE risk assessment algorithm, printed physicians' orders, and audit and feedback sessions. Medical wards at six hospitals (representing clusters) in Ontario, Canada were included; three were randomized to the multicomponent intervention and three to usual care (i.e., no active strategies for thromboprophylaxis in place). Blinding was not used.

RESULTS

A total of 2,611 patients (1,154 in the intervention and 1,457 in the control group) were eligible and included in the analysis. This multicomponent intervention did not lead to a significant difference in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates between intervention and control hospitals (appropriate management rate odds ratio = 0.80; 95% confidence interval: 0.50, 1.28; p = 0.36; intra-class correlation coefficient: 0.022), and thus was not considered feasible. Major barriers to effective knowledge translation were poor attendance by clinical staff at education and feedback sessions, difficulty locating preprinted orders, and lack of involvement by clinical and administrative leaders. We identified several factors that may increase uptake of a VTE prophylaxis strategy, including local champions, support from clinical and administrative leaders, mandatory use, and a simple, clinically relevant risk assessment tool.

CONCLUSIONS

Hospitals allocated to our multicomponent intervention did not have a higher rate of medical inpatients appropriately managed for thromboprophylaxis than did hospitals that were not allocated to this strategy.

Thromboprophylaxis in nonsurgical patients

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is an important cause of preventable morbidity and mortality in medically ill patients. Randomized controlled trials indicate that pharmacologic prophylaxis reduces deep venous thrombosis (relative risk [RR] = 0.46; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36-0.59) and pulmonary embolism (RR = 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33-0.72) with a nonsignificant trend toward more bleeding (RR = 1.36; 95% CI, 0.80-2.33]. Low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin are equally efficacious in preventing deep venous thrombosis (RR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.69-1.06) and pulmonary embolism (RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.47-2.38), but LMWH is associated with significantly less major bleeding (RR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.23-0.85). LMWH is favored for VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients. New VTE and bleeding risk stratification tools offer the potential to improve the risk-benefit ratio for VTE prophylaxis in medically ill patients. Intermittent pneumatic compression devices should be used for VTE prophylaxis in patients with contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Graduated compression stockings should be used with caution. VTE prevention in medically ill patients using extended-duration VTE prophylaxis and new oral anticoagulants warrant further investigation. VTE prophylaxis prescription and administration rates are suboptimal and warrant multidisciplinary performance improvement strategies.

Factors Associated With Inappropriate Chemical Prophylaxis of Thromboembolism in Surgical Patients

Introduction:

Despite various guidelines for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention, malpractice in prescribing thromboprophylaxis is common. In this study, factors associated with prescribing or not prescribing appropriate chemical thromboprophylaxis were assessed.

Materials and methods:

We enrolled high-risk patients for VTE (based on Caprini score) in the general surgery ward. They were divided into 2 groups based on receiving appropriate prophylaxis or not. Factors associated with prescribing thromboprophylaxis were analyzed.

Results:

A total of 613 patients were enrolled in this study. Head and neck operations ( P < .0001), minor surgeries ( P = .001), mastectomy ( P = .012), and medical treatment ( P = 0.034) were the factors associated with not prescribing thromboprophylaxis. In contrast, age ( P < .0001), laparoscopic surgeries ( P = .011), surgery duration (< .0001), oral contraceptive pill consumption ( P = .005), and complete bed rest ( P = .002) were protective factors.

Conclusion:

Minor surgeries, head and neck operations, mastectomy, and medical treatment are associated with overlooking anticoagulant administration. It is recommended to consider aforementioned pitfalls in routine practice and education.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to Australian hospitals: summary of National Health and Medical Research Council clinical practice guideline

Each year in Australia, about 1 in 1000 people develop a first episode of venous thromboembolism (VTE), which approximates to about 20,000 cases. More than half of these episodes occur during or soon after a hospital admission, which makes them potentially preventable. This paper summarises recommendations from the National Health and Medical Research Council's 'Clinical Practice Guideline for the Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Admitted to Australian Hospitals' and describes the way these recommendations were developed. The guideline has two aims: to provide advice on VTE prevention to Australian clinicians and to support implementation of effective programmes for VTE prevention in Australian hospitals by offering evidence-based recommendations which local hospital guidelines can be based on. Methods for preventing VTE are pharmacological and/or mechanical, and they require appropriate timing, dosing and duration and also need to be accompanied by good clinical care, such as promoting mobility and hydration whilst in hospital. With some procedures or injuries, the risk of VTE is sufficiently high to require that all patients receive an effective form of prophylaxis unless this is contraindicated; in other clinical settings, the need for prophylaxis requires individual assessment. For optimal VTE prevention, all patients admitted to hospital should have early and formal assessments of: (i) their intrinsic VTE risk and the risks related to their medical conditions; (ii) the added VTE risks resulting from surgery or trauma; (iii) bleeding risks that would contraindicate pharmacological prophylaxis; (iv) any contraindications to mechanical prophylaxis, culminating in (v) a decision about prophylaxis (pharmacological and/or mechanical, or none). The most appropriate form of prophylaxis will depend on the type of surgery, medical condition and patient characteristics. Recommendations for various clinical circumstances are provided as summary tables with relevance to orthopaedic surgical procedures, other types of surgery and medical inpatients. In addition, the tables indicate the grades of supporting evidence for the recommendations (these range from Grade A which can be trusted to guide practice, to Grade D where there is more uncertainty; Good Practice Points are consensus-based expert opinions).

Challenges in implementing government-directed VTE guidance for medical patients: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Implementing venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment guidance on admission to hospital has proved difficult worldwide. In 2010, VTE risk assessment in English hospitals was linked to financial sanctions. This study investigated possible barriers and facilitators for VTE risk assessment in medical patients and evaluated the impact of local and national initiatives.

SETTING

Acute Medical Unit in one English National Health Service university teaching hospital.

METHODS

This was a mixed methods study; National Research Ethics Service approval was granted. Data were collected over four 1-week periods; November 2009 (1), January 2010 (2), April 2010 (3) and April 2011 (4). Case notes for all medical patients admitted during these periods were reviewed. Thirty-six staff were observed admitting 71 of these patients; 24 observed staff participated in a structured interview.

RESULTS

876 case notes were reviewed. In total, 82.1% of patients had one or more VTE risk factors and 25.3% one or more bleeding risks. VTE risk assessment rose from a baseline of 6.9-19.6%, following local initiatives, and to 98.7% following financially sanctioned government targets. A similar increase in appropriate prescribing of prophylaxis was seen, but inappropriate prescribing also rose. No staff observed in period 1 conducted VTE risk assessment, risk-assessment forms were largely ignored or discarded during period 2; and electronic recording systems available during period 3 were not accessed. Few patients were asked any VTE-related questions in periods 1, 2 or 3. Interviewees' actual knowledge of VTE risk was not related to perceived knowledge level. Eight of the 24 staff interviewed were aware of national policies or guidance: none had seen them. Principal barriers identified to risk assessment were: involvement of multiple staff in individual admissions; interruptions; lack of policy awareness; time pressure and complexity of tools.

CONCLUSIONS

National financial sanctions appear effective in implementing guidance, where other local measures have failed.

Chest physicians' knowledge of appropriate thromboprophylaxis: insights from the PROMOTE study

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of in-hospital mortality. Several international guidelines provide thromboprophylaxis recommendations; however, guidelines adherence is missing worldwide. We evaluated the chest physicians' knowledge regarding VTE prophylaxis, using a systematically developed questionnaire. The Prophylaxis-foR-venOus-throMbOembolism-assessmenT-questionnairE (PROMOTE) questionnaire was developed using an algorithm encompassing the most important VTE prophylaxis topics and included 13 clinical scenarios. Responses were evaluated with reference to the eighth edition of American College of Chest Physicians guidelines for VTE prevention to assess thromboprophylaxis appropriateness. The questionnaires were distributed during the fourth International Congress on Pulmonary Disease, Intensive Care and Tuberculosis. From the 88 received questionnaires (response rate: 39.8%), 82 were acceptable (62 men, 20 women). The most commonly cited VTE risk factors were immobility (79.2%), surgery (68.2%), and cancer (60.9%). The mean correct response ratio to the questions was 67% [95% confidence interval (CI) 64-70%] with highest appropriateness ratios amongst cardiologists (77.1 ± 5.8%) and lowest ratios among thoracic surgeons (59.2 ± 5%). Physicians' specialty had a significant effect on the overall appropriateness (P = 0.04) and most of appropriateness subcategories. Thoracic surgeons had the lowest rate of over-prophylaxis (P = 0.02). Years passed from graduation were inversely associated with overall appropriateness (P = 0.006). Physicians with academic engagements had a higher overall appropriateness (P = 0.04). We found a wide gap between the guideline recommendations and the responses. PROMOTE is the first systematically developed questionnaire that addresses chest physicians' thromboprophylaxis knowledge and could be useful to strategies to improve VTE prophylaxis. Because of the dissimilar prophylaxis pitfalls of different specialists, distinct educational programs seem necessary to improve their knowledge of proper VTE prophylaxis.

Effectiveness of a novel and scalable clinical decision support intervention to improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a quasi-experimental study

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients, and regulators and payors are encouraging the use of systems to prevent them. Here, we examine the effect of a computerized clinical decision support (CDS) intervention implemented across a multi-hospital academic health system on VTE prophylaxis and events.

Methods

The study included 223,062 inpatients admitted between April 2007 and May 2010, and used administrative and clinical data. The intervention was integrated into a commercial electronic health record (EHR) in an admission orderset used for all admissions. Three time periods were examined: baseline (period 1), and the time after implementation of the first CDS intervention (period 2) and a second iteration (period 3). Providers were prompted to accept or decline prophylaxis based on patient risk. Time series analyses examined the impact of the intervention on VTE prophylaxis during time periods two and three compared to baseline, and a simple pre-post design examined impact on VTE events and bleeds secondary to anticoagulation. VTE prophylaxis and events were also examined in a prespecified surgical subset of our population meeting the public reporting criteria defined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicator (PSI).

Results

Unadjusted analyses suggested that “recommended”, “any”, and “pharmacologic” prophylaxis increased from baseline to the last study period (27.1% to 51.9%, 56.7% to 78.1%, and 42.0% to 54.4% respectively; p < 0.01 for all comparisons). Results were significant across all hospitals and the health system overall. Interrupted time series analyses suggested that our intervention increased the use of “recommended” and “any” prophylaxis by 7.9% and 9.6% respectively from baseline to time period 2 (p < 0.01 for both comparisons); and 6.6% and 9.6% respectively from baseline to the combined time periods 2 and 3 (p < 0.01 for both comparisons). There were no significant changes in “pharmacologic” prophylaxis in the adjusted model. The overall percent of patients with VTE increased from baseline to the last study period (2.0% to 2.2%; p = 0.03), but an analysis excluding patients with VTE “present on admission” (POA) demonstrated no difference in events (1.3% to 1.3%; p = 0.80). Overall bleeds did not significantly change. An analysis examining VTE prophylaxis and events in a surgical subset of patients defined by the AHRQ PSI demonstrated increased “recommended”, “any”, and “pharmacologic” prophylaxis from baseline to the last study period (32.3% to 60.0%, 62.8% to 85.7%, and 47.9% to 63.3% respectively; p < 0.01 for all comparisons) as well as reduced VTE events (2.2% to 1.7%; p < 0.01).

Conclusions

The CDS intervention was associated with an increase in “recommended” and “any” VTE prophylaxis across the multi-hospital academic health system. The intervention was also associated with increased VTE rates in the overall study population, but a subanalysis using only admissions with appropriate POA documentation suggested no change in VTE rates, and a prespecified analysis of a surgical subset of our sample as defined by the AHRQ PSI for public reporting purposes suggested reduced VTE. This intervention was created in a commonly used commercial EHR and is scalable across institutions with similar systems.

Venous thromboprophylaxis in general surgery ward admissions: strategies for improvement

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the adherence to institutional venous thromboprophylaxis clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in general surgery patients and to assess the effectiveness of a multi-strategy improvement intervention.

DESIGN

A prospective before-after study.

SETTING

Two teaching hospitals located in the city of Buenos Aires, Argentina.

PARTICIPANTS

Prescriptions belonging to patients admitted to the general surgery wards were evaluated.

INTERVENTION

A multi-strategy intervention that included (i) simplification of institutional CPGs for venous thromboprophylaxis using a single drug at a single dose, based on the American College of Chest Physicians recommendations, (ii) distribution of pocket cards with an algorithm for the implementation of new recommendations to both, physicians and nurses, working in the general surgery units, (iii) educational talks, (iv) paper-based reminders and (v) audit and feedback.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

The adherence of the venous thromboprophylaxis prescription to the institutional recommendations.

RESULTS

The prescriptions of 100 admitted patients before and 90 after the intervention were included in the analysis. The initial rate of adherence was 31%. After the intervention this rate rose to 71.1% (P< 0.001). The major improvement observed was the reduction in omitted prophylaxis in patients at risk of venous thromboembolism from 45 to 13.3% (P< 0.001). In the adjusted model, prescribing compliance with CPGs was five times more likely during the second stage than during the first stage (OR = 5.60, 95% CI = 2.92-10.74).

CONCLUSIONS

Simple and economical interventions such as those described in this study can improve general surgeons compliance with the institutional and international guidelines, thus assuring patient safety and quality of health care.

Multidisciplinary Approach to Improve Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment and Prophylaxis Rates in Hospitalized Patients

Background:

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a preventable disease in hospitalized patients; however, VTE prophylaxis is underutilized. Effective strategies for the assessment of individual patients' VTE risk and the provision of VTE prophylaxis are needed.

Objective:

To evaluate the efficacy of a multidisciplinary intervention designed to improve VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis in at-risk hospitalized patients.

Methods:

The multidisciplinary intervention to improve VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis consisted of 3 strategies: a broad educational effort, nursing assessment, and pharmacist follow-up. Educational programs were delivered to nursing, pharmacy, and physician staff. Upon admission, all patients were assessed for VTE risk factors by nursing staff. Pharmacists reviewed reports of patients screened to have at least 1 VTE risk factor; for patients not prescribed VTE prophylaxis, pharmacists placed a progress note and VTE prophylaxis order form in the chart. If no prophylaxis was prescribed by the following day, the pharmacist contacted the physician with a verbal recommendation. The impact of this intervention was evaluated by comparing the proportion of patients assessed for VTE risk factors on admission and the proportion of VTE prophylaxis candidates who received prophylaxis, both before and after implementation.

Results:

A total of 310 patients were included during the 2-month study period. An increase in patients assessed for the presence of VTE risk factors was observed after the intervention (41% vs 87%, p < 0.001). Similarly, an increase in patients prescribed prophylaxis was observed after the intervention (36% vs 63%, p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

This multidisciplinary approach including education, nursing assessment, and pharmacist follow-up resulted in a significant increase in the rates of VTE risk assessment and prophylaxis.

Lessons from the Johns Hopkins Multi-Disciplinary Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prevention Collaborative

PROBLEM

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of potentially preventable mortality, morbidity, and increased medical costs. Risk-appropriate prophylaxis can prevent most VTE events, but only a small fraction of patients at risk receive this treatment.

DESIGN

Prospective quality improvement programme.

SETTING

Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

STRATEGIES FOR CHANGE

A multidisciplinary team established a VTE Prevention Collaborative in 2005. The collaborative applied the four step TRIP (translating research into practice) model to develop and implement a mandatory clinical decision support tool for VTE risk stratification and risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis for all hospitalised adult patients. Initially, paper based VTE order sets were implemented, which were then converted into 16 specialty-specific, mandatory, computerised, clinical decision support modules.

KEY MEASURES FOR IMPROVEMENT

VTE risk stratification within 24 hours of hospital admission and provision of risk-appropriate, evidence based VTE prophylaxis.

EFFECTS OF CHANGE

The VTE team was able to increase VTE risk assessment and ordering of risk-appropriate prophylaxis with paper based order sets to a limited extent, but achieved higher compliance with a computerised clinical decision support tool and the data feedback which it enabled. Risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis increased from 26% to 80% for surgical patients and from 25% to 92% for medical patients in 2011.

LESSONS LEARNT

A computerised clinical decision support tool can increase VTE risk stratification and risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis among hospitalised adult patients admitted to a large urban academic medical centre. It is important to ensure the tool is part of the clinician's normal workflow, is mandatory (computerised forcing function), and offers the requisite modules needed for every clinical specialty.

Cross-sectional study of adherence to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines in hospitalized patients. The Trombo-Brit study

BACKGROUND

DVT is the main cause of death in hospitalized patients and thromboprophylaxis is the only way to prevent these deaths. International recommendations suggested that active monitoring of DVT/PE prophylaxis can improve the efficacy in Hospitals.

METHODS

We performed a cohort study in three consecutives periods to evaluate DVT prophylaxis in 388 adults hospitalized in a General Hospital.

RESULTS

85% of the population had high risk factors for DVT. Thromboprophylaxis was in accordance with local and International guidelines (ACCP 2008) in 72.7% and 86% of the patients respectively. No significant difference could be founded between clinical and surgical patients. One every 10 patients received higher prophylaxis than suggested by guidelines and two out of ten received deficient or no prophylaxis. The worst 2 groups of patients were those with moderate/low risk of DVT and the group with a contraindication to pharmacologic prophylaxis. We observed a progressive improvement of the DVT prophylaxis in the 3 periods of evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the rate of recommended thromboprophylaxis is higher than many other reports in the region we still have some areas where we need to improve. Regular audits like these are very helpful to find out what specific areas of the hospital needs some careful attention in order to have a better quality of assistance.

A simple reminder system improves venous thromboembolism prophylaxis rates and reduces thrombotic events for hospitalized patients1

BACKGROUND

Compliance with venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is poor.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to determine whether a simple electronic reminder applicable to all hospitalized patients would increase prophylaxis rates and reduce VTE rates.

METHODS

An electronic reminder was added to the electronic medical record admission note used by all services in our hospital. Prophylaxis, VTE and bleeding rates before and after implementation were compared. Data were analyzed with sas version 9.1.

RESULTS

Among all adult medical and surgical patients admitted to our hospital during the time periods studied, 42.8% (1236/2888) before and 60.0% (1410/2350) after the reminder was added received appropriate prophylaxis as per American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines (P < 0.001). The difference reached significance for both medical (51.0% vs. 68.9%; P < 0.001) and surgical (48.0% vs. 61.0%; P < 0.001) services. Fewer patients were diagnosed with VTE after our reminder was added (1.1% vs. 0.3%; P = 0.001), and there was a trend towards fewer bleeds (1.1% vs. 0.6%; P = 0.09). The presence of the reminder was an independent predictor for prophylaxis being given (odds ratio [OR] 1.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.70-2.18; P < 0.001), and was independently associated with a decreased risk for VTE (OR 0.30, 95% CI 0.14-0.64; P = 0.003) after adjustment for other VTE risk factors.

CONCLUSION

Adding an electronic reminder to the admission note improved prophylaxis rates and reduced VTE rates across services. The system is easily reproducible and applicable to other facilities. The improvement obtained was modest, so additional measures will probably be needed to optimize prophylaxis rates.

Prevention of VTE in nonsurgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

This guideline addressed VTE prevention in hospitalized medical patients, outpatients with cancer, the chronically immobilized, long-distance travelers, and those with asymptomatic thrombophilia.

METHODS

This guideline follows methods described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis, we recommend anticoagulant thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) bid, LDUH tid, or fondaparinux (Grade 1B) and suggest against extending the duration of thromboprophylaxis beyond the period of patient immobilization or acute hospital stay (Grade 2B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at low risk of thrombosis, we recommend against the use of pharmacologic prophylaxis or mechanical prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For acutely ill hospitalized medical patients at increased risk of thrombosis who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with graduated compression stockings (GCS) (Grade 2C) or intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients, we suggest using LMWH or LDUH thromboprophylaxis (Grade 2C). For critically ill patients who are bleeding or are at high risk for major bleeding, we suggest mechanical thromboprophylaxis with GCS and/or IPC at least until the bleeding risk decreases (Grade 2C). In outpatients with cancer who have no additional risk factors for VTE we suggest against routine prophylaxis with LMWH or LDUH (Grade 2B) and recommend against the prophylactic use of vitamin K antagonists (Grade 1B).

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions regarding prophylaxis in nonsurgical patients should be made after consideration of risk factors for both thrombosis and bleeding, clinical context, and patients' values and preferences.

Prevention of VTE in nonorthopedic surgical patients: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

VTE is a common cause of preventable death in surgical patients.

METHODS

We developed recommendations for thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients by using systematic methods as described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines. Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

We describe several alternatives for stratifying the risk of VTE in general and abdominal-pelvic surgical patients. When the risk for VTE is very low (< 0.5%), we recommend that no specific pharmacologic (Grade 1B) or mechanical (Grade 2C) prophylaxis be used other than early ambulation. For patients at low risk for VTE (∼1.5%), we suggest mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC), over no prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at moderate risk for VTE (∼3%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we suggest low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) (Grade 2B), low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 2B), or mechanical prophylaxis with IPC (Grade 2C) over no prophylaxis. For patients at high risk for VTE (∼6%) who are not at high risk for major bleeding complications, we recommend pharmacologic prophylaxis with LMWH (Grade 1B) or low-dose unfractionated heparin (Grade 1B) over no prophylaxis. In these patients, we suggest adding mechanical prophylaxis with elastic stockings or IPC to pharmacologic prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For patients at high risk for VTE undergoing abdominal or pelvic surgery for cancer, we recommend extended-duration, postoperative, pharmacologic prophylaxis (4 weeks) with LMWH over limited-duration prophylaxis (Grade 1B). For patients at moderate to high risk for VTE who are at high risk for major bleeding complications or those in whom the consequences of bleeding are believed to be particularly severe, we suggest use of mechanical prophylaxis, preferably with IPC, over no prophylaxis until the risk of bleeding diminishes and pharmacologic prophylaxis may be initiated (Grade 2C). For patients in all risk groups, we suggest that an inferior vena cava filter not be used for primary VTE prevention (Grade 2C) and that surveillance with venous compression ultrasonography should not be performed (Grade 2C). We developed similar recommendations for other nonorthopedic surgical populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Optimal thromboprophylaxis in nonorthopedic surgical patients will consider the risks of VTE and bleeding complications as well as the values and preferences of individual patients.

Performance measures for improving the prevention of venous thromboembolism: achievement in clinical practice

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common complication during and after hospitalization for acute medical illness or surgery. Despite the existence of evidence-based guidelines for VTE prevention, real-world prescribing practices are frequently suboptimal. Specific performance measures relating to VTE prevention and treatment have been developed by US health care organizations to increase adherence with best-practice recommendations and ultimately reduce the number of preventable VTE events. Two measures developed by the Surgical Care Improvement Project have been endorsed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) and focus on VTE prevention. In addition, six measures have been developed recently by The Joint Commission in collaboration with the NQF; three measures relate to VTE prevention and three focus on treatment. To attain widespread achievement of these performance goals, it is essential to raise awareness of their existence and specifications. It is also imperative that hospitals develop and implement effective VTE protocols. The use of multiple, active strategies, such as computer decision support systems with regular audit and feedback, may be particularly valuable approaches to improve current practices within an integrated quality improvement program. During practical implementation of VTE protocols at Norton Healthcare (Kentucky's largest healthcare system), strong leadership, physician engagement, and caregiver accountability were identified as key factors influencing the process. As such, more hospitals may be able to increase adherence with guidelines, improve achievement of quality goals, and help to reduce the substantial burden associated with avoidable VTE.

Thromboprophylaxis use in medical and surgical inpatients and the impact of an electronic risk assessment tool as part of a multi-factorial intervention. A report on behalf of the elVis study investigators

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major source of morbidity and mortality for both surgical and medical hospitalised patients. Despite the availability of guidelines, thromboprophylaxis continues to be underutilised. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of an electronic VTE risk assessment tool (elVis) on VTE prophylaxis in hospitalised patients. A national, multicentre, prospective clinical audit collected information on VTE prophylaxis and risk factors for VTE in 2,400 hospitalised patients (comprising of equal numbers of medical, surgical and orthopaedic patients). After auditing the standard care use of VTE prophylaxis in 1,200 consecutive patients (audit 1, A1), the elVis system was installed and a second audit (A2) of VTE prophylaxis was performed in a further 1,200 patients. The use of the electronic VTE risk assessment tool was low with 20.5% of patients assessed with elVis. The intervention, elVis plus accompanying education, improved the use VTE prophylaxis to guidelines by 5.0% amongst all patients and by 10.7% amongst high risk patients (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.27 and 1.65 respectively). The use of elVis in A2 varied between hospitals and specialties and this resulted in marked heterogeneity. Despite this heterogeneity, patients assessed with elVis had 1.44 times higher AOR of being treated to guidelines compared to those who were not (P < 0.05). The use of elVis accompanied by staff education improved VTE prophylaxis, especially amongst high risk patients. To optimise the effectiveness and support enduring practice change electronic systems, such as elVis, need to be completely integrated within the treatment pathway.

Barriers and potential solutions toward optimal prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis for hospitalized medical patients: a survey of healthcare professionals

OBJECTIVE

Deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis remains underused in hospitalized medical patients despite strong recommendations that at-risk patients should receive prophylaxis. To understand this gap between knowledge and practice, we surveyed clinicians' perceptions about the importance of DVT prophylaxis, barriers to guideline implementation, and interventions to optimize prophylaxis.

METHODS

Paper- and electronic mail-based surveys were sent to 1553 internists, nurses, pharmacists, and physiotherapists in Ontario, Canada. Responses were scored on 7-point Likert scales. An important barrier to optimal DVT prophylaxis was 1 with a mean score ≥5, and interventions with high potential success or feasibility were those with mean scores ≥5.

RESULTS

DVT prophylaxis was perceived as important by all clinician groups but this did not appear to translate into knowledge about underutilization of current DVT prophylaxis strategies. Physicians and pharmacists recognized the underuse of DVT prophylaxis in medical patients, while nurses and physiotherapists tended to perceive prophylaxis strategies as appropriate. Lack of clear indications and contraindications for prophylaxis and concerns about bleeding risks were perceived as important barriers. Preprinted orders were considered the most potentially successful and feasible way to optimize prophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable barrier to optimal DVT prophylaxis utilization may be that those healthcare providers best able to conduct a daily assessment of patients' need for prophylaxis underrecognize the problem that prophylaxis is underutilized in this population. Interventions to bridge the gap between knowledge and practice should consider preprinted orders outlining DVT risk factors, and educating front-line care providers prior to implementation of a top-down approach.

Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Risk Assessment and Prophylaxis: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of the Facilitators and Barriers to Healthcare Worker Compliance with Clinical Practice Guidelines in the Acute Care Setting

BACKGROUND

Even though guidelines for venous thromboembolism risk assessment and prophylaxis are available, patients with identifiable risk factors admitted to acute hospitals are not receiving appropriate prophylaxis. The incidence of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients is higher than that of people living in the community who have similar demographics. Knowledge of barriers to healthcare professional compliance with clinical practice guidelines and facilitators to improve compliance will aid appropriate use of venous thromboembolism clinical practice guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this review was to identify the barriers and facilitators to healthcare professional compliance with clinical practice guidelines for venous thromboembolism assessment and prophylaxis.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies were considered for inclusion regardless of the designation of the healthcare professional involved in the acute care setting.The focus of the review was compliance with venous thromboembolism clinical practice guidelines and identified facilitators and barriers to clinical use of these guidelines.Any experimental, observational studies or qualitative research studies were considered for inclusion in this review.The outcomes of interest were compliance with venous thromboembolism guidelines and identified barriers and facilitators to compliance.

SEARCH STRATEGY

A comprehensive, three-step search strategy was conducted for studies published from May 2003 to November 2011, aimed to identify both published and unpublished studies in the English language across six major databases.

METHODOLOGICAL QUALITY

Retrieved papers were assessed by two independent reviewers prior to inclusion in the review using standardized critical appraisal instruments from the Joanna Briggs Institute.

DATA COLLECTION

Both quantitative and qualitative data were extracted from papers included in the review using standardized data tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Quantitative data was pooled using narrative summary due to heterogeneity in the ways in which data was reported. Qualitative data was pooled using Joanna Briggs Institute software.

RESULTS

Twenty studies were included in the review with methodological quality ranging from low to high.Reported compliance at baseline ranged from 6.25% to 70.4% and compliance post intervention ranged from 36% to 100%.Eight main categories of barriers and nine main categories of facilitators were identified. The quantitative and qualitative studies identified very similar barriers and facilitators which fell under the same categories. The studies all had components of education involved in their intervention and the review found that passive dissemination or one mode of intervention was not enough to affect and sustain change in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identified 20 studies that assessed compliance with venous thromboembolism clinical practice guidelines, and identified barriers and facilitators to that compliance. The studies showed that many different forms of intervention can improve compliance with clinical practice guidelines. They provided evidence that interventions can be developed for the specific audience and setting they are being used for, and that not all interventions are appropriate for all areas, such as computer applications not being suitable where system capacity is lacking.Healthcare professionals need to be aware of venous thromboembolism clinical practice guidelines and improve patient outcomes by using them in the hospital setting. There are a number of interventions that can improve guideline compliance, keeping in mind the barriers and adjusting practice to avoid them.Venous thromboembolism compliance within rural Australian hospitals has not been determined, however as inequalities have been identified in other areas of healthcare between urban and rural regions this would be a logical area to research.

Sustained impact of electronic alerts on rate of prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism

Advanced electronic alerts (eAlerts) and computerised physician order entry (CPOE) increase adequate thromboprophylaxis orders among hospitalised medical patients. It remains unclear whether eAlerts maintain their efficacy over time, after withdrawal of continuing medical education (CME) on eAlerts and on thromboprophylaxis indications from the study staff. We analysed 5,317 hospital cases from the University Hospital Zurich during 2006-2009: 1,854 cases from a medical ward with eAlerts (interventiongroup) and 3,463 cases from a surgical ward without eAlerts (controlgroup). In the intervention group, an eAlert with hospital-specific venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention guidelines was issued in the electronic patient chart 6 hours after admission if no pharmacological or mechanical thromboprophylaxis had been ordered. Data were analysed for three phases: pre-implementation (phase 1), eAlert implementation with CME (phase 2), and post-implementation without CME (phase3). The rates of thromboprophylaxis in the intervention group were 43.4% in phase 1 and 66.7% in phase 2 (p<0.001), and increased further to 73.6% in phase3 (p=0.011). Early thromboprophylaxis orders within 12 hours after admission were more often placed in phase 2 and 3 as compared to phase 1 (67.1% vs. 52.1%, p<0.001). In the surgical control group, the thromboprophylaxis rates in the three phases were 88.6%, 90.7%, 90.6% (p=0.16). Advanced eAlerts may provide sustained efficacy over time, with stable rates of thromboprophylaxis orders among hospitalised medical patients.

Medication chart intervention improves inpatient thromboembolism prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Inpatient VTE prophylaxis is underused. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the low-cost, multifaceted Australian National Inpatient Medication Chart (NIMC) intervention on improving the quality of VTE prophylaxis and reducing disease. The NIMC intervention incorporated (1) a VTE risk stratification and appropriate prophylaxis guidance tool, (2) a prophylaxis contraindication screening instrument, and (3) a prophylaxis prescription prompt.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 2,371 consecutive medical and surgical admissions was performed at a regional referral hospital over 1 year both before and after the intervention. Outcomes measured included the frequency of prophylaxis use, timing of prophylaxis initiation, adherence of the prescribed prophylaxis regimen to guidelines, incidence of VTE disease, and prophylaxis-related complications.

RESULTS

Following NIMC intervention, prophylaxis use increased from 52.7% to 66.5% in medical patients and from 77.5% to 89.1% in surgical patients (P < .001). This increase was still evident 12 months postintervention. After intervention, prophylaxis initiated on admission increased from 65.0% to 83.6% in medical patients and from 60.7% to 78.0% in surgical patients (P < .01); adherence rates to recommended guidelines increased from 55.6% to 71.0% in medical patients and from 53.6% to 75.6% in surgical patients (P < .01). More VTE risk factors independently triggered prophylaxis usage postintervention. The improved quality of prophylaxis did not significantly reduce VTE incidence (risk ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.48-1.62). The rate of prophylaxis-related complications remained similar before and after intervention.

CONCLUSIONS

The multifaceted NIMC intervention resulted in a sustained increase in appropriate and timely VTE prophylaxis in medical and surgical inpatients.

Improving adherence to venous thromoembolism prophylaxis using multiple interventions

OBJECTIVE:

In hospital, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) increases the morbidity and mortality in patients with acute medical illness. DVT prophylaxis is well known to be effective in preventing venous thromoembolism (VTE). However, its use remains suboptimal. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of quality improvement project on adherence with VTE prophylaxis guidelines and on the incidence of hospital-acquired VTEs in medical patients.

METHODS:

The study was conducted at Saudi Aramco Medical Services Organization from June 2008 to August 2009. Quality improvement strategies included education of physicians, the development of a protocol, and weekly monitoring of compliance with the recommendations for VTE prophylaxis as included in the multidisciplinary rounds. A feedback was provided whenever a deviation from the protocol occurs.

RESULTS:

During the study period, a total of 560 general internal medicine patients met the criteria for VTE prophylaxis. Of those, 513 (91%) patients actually received the recommended VTE prophylaxis. The weekly compliance rate in the initial stage of the intervention was 63% (14 of 22) and increased to an overall rate of 100% (39 of 39) (P = 0.002). Hospital-acquired DVT rate was 0.8 per 1000 discharges in the preintervention period and 0.5 per 1000 discharges in the postintervention period, P = 0.51. However, there was a significant increase in the time-free period of the VTE and we had 11 months with no single DVT.

CONCLUSION:

In this study, the use of multiple interventions increased VTE prophylaxis compliance rate.

Venous thromboembolism following colorectal surgery for suspected or confirmed malignancy

Surgery for colorectal cancer conveys a high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The effect of thromboprophylactic regimens of varying duration on the incidence of VTE was assessed in 417 patients undergoing surgery between 2005 and 2009 for colorectal cancer. Low-dose unfractionated heparin (LDUH) was used in 52.7% of patients, low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) in 35.3%, and 10.7% received LDUH followed by LMWH. Pharmacological prophylaxis was continued after hospitalisation in 31.6%. Major bleeding occurred in 4% of patients. The 30-day mortality rate was 1.9%. The incidence of symptomatic VTE from hospital admission for surgery to 12 months after was 2.4%. There were no in-hospital VTE events. The majority of events occurred in the three-month period after discharge, but there were VTE events up to 12 months, especially in patients with more advanced cancer and multiple comorbidities.

Antithrombotic prophylaxis in the middle East

Several factors have been proposed to explain the persistence of a high incidence of venous thromboembolism worldwide with its associated morbidity and mortality. Underutilization of anticoagulants and failure of adherence to thromboprophylaxis guidelines are emerging global health concerns. We herein review this alarming observation with special emphasis on the Middle East region. We also discuss strategies that could help control this increasingly reported problem.

Real-World Rates of In-hospital and Postdischarge Deep-Vein Thrombosis and Pulmonary Embolism in At-Risk Medical Patients in the United States

Hospitalized medical patients are at risk of deep-vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). We evaluated inpatient and postdischarge DVT/PE and thromboprophylaxis rates in US medical patients, using patient admissions from January 2005 to November 2007 in the Premier Perspective™-i3 Pharma Informatics database. Among 15 721 patients with cancer, congestive heart failure, severe lung disease, and infectious disease, 39.0% received inpatient thromboprophylaxis, with the highest rate in patients with cancer (51.9%). In all, 3.4% received outpatient pharmacological prophylaxis. Mean ± SD prophylaxis duration was 2.2 ± 5.7 days. Overall, 3.0% of inpatients had symptomatic DVT/PE, and an additional 1.1% of patients were rehospitalized for DVT/PE or treated in the outpatient setting. Patients with infectious disease had the highest rate of DVT/PE (4.6%). Inpatient DVT/PE and prophylaxis rates of the different medical conditions had a negative correlation ( R 2 = 0.72). This analysis demonstrates the burden of DVT/PE and highlights the underuse of thromboprophylaxis across the continuum of care.

Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism: guidelines translated for the clinician

Venous thromboembolism is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and most often affects hospitalized postoperative surgical and medical patients. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis undoubtedly improves the care of these patients, as demonstrated by the current literature and guidelines. Failure to prescribe prophylaxis when indicated, however, remains a vital health care concern. The American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) published their most recent guidelines regarding venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in 2008. In this review, we aim to summarize the most recent ACCP prophylaxis guidelines with practical application and interpretation for the practicing physician. Here we present the most practical information from these guidelines and summarize essential recommendations in key tables. We will briefly review the grading system used in the guidelines for the level of evidence and the strength of the recommendation. We will then discuss the recommendations for prophylaxis in the various patient populations described in these guidelines including general and orthopedic surgery, gynecologic surgery, urologic surgery, thoracic surgery, neurosurgery, trauma, medical conditions, cancer patients, and critical care. In addition, we will discuss recent clinical trials regarding novel anticoagulants for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and share some conclusions.

The AVAIL ME study: a multinational survey of VTE risk and prophylaxis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major public health issue that is frequently underestimated. The primary objective of this multinational survey was to identify patients at risk for VTE, and to define the rate of patients receiving appropriate prophylaxis in the Middle Eastern region. Standardized case report forms were filled by trained individuals on one predefined day in selected hospitals. Data were then entered and analyzed by independent biostatisticians. Risk was categorized according to American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines, 2004. Logistic regressions were carried out to assess factors that determined VTE prophylaxis. 845 (37%) medical and 1421 (63%) surgical patients were eligible for the study. Patients were at low (4.2%), moderate (51.7%), high (9%) and very high risk (35.2%) for VTE. Any VTE prevention was given in 17.9, 41.7, 60.6 and 66.9% of respective risk categories, while ACCP guidelines were applied in 86.3, 41.1, 48.3 and 24.5% of these categories. Surgical patient type, immobility on admission, and contraceptive use were the most important drivers of VTE prophylaxis in those who were eligible to it (OR ≥ 2). Surgical patient type, immobility during hospitalization, existence of a VTE protocol and chronic heart failure were the most important drivers for VTE prophylaxis application in patients who were not eligible for it (OR ≥ 3). A concordance κ value of 0.16 was found between eligibility for VTE prophylaxis on one hand and its application in practice (P < 0.001). Risk factors for VTE and eligibility for VTE prophylaxis are common, but VTE prophylaxis and guidelines application are low.

Adherence to guideline-directed venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among medical and surgical inpatients at 33 academic medical centers in the United States

This study's purpose was to describe compliance with established venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines in medical and surgical inpatients at US academic medical centers (AMCs). Data were collected for a 2007 University HealthSystem Consortium Deep Vein Thrombosis/Pulmonary Embolism (DVT/PE) Benchmarking Project that explored VTE in AMCs. Prophylaxis was considered appropriate based on 2004 American College of Chest Physicians guidelines. A total of 33 AMCs from 30 states participated. In all, 48% of patients received guideline-directed prophylaxis-59% were medical and 41% were surgical patients. VTE history was more common among medical patients with guideline-directed prophylaxis. Surgical patients admitted from the emergency department and with higher illness severity were more likely to receive appropriate prophylaxis. Despite guidelines, VTE prophylaxis remains underutilized in these US AMCs, particularly among surgical patients. Because AMCs provide the majority of physician training and should reflect and set care standards, this appears to be an opportunity for practice and quality improvement and for education.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guideline implementation is improved by nurse directed feedback and audit

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major health and financial burden. VTE impacts health outcomes in surgical and non-surgical patients. VTE prophylaxis is underutilized, particularly amongst high risk medical patients. We conducted a multicentre clinical audit to determine the extent to which appropriate VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients could be improved via implementation of a multifaceted nurse facilitated educational program.

METHODS

This multicentre clinical audit of 15 Australian hospitals was conducted in 2007-208. The program incorporated a baseline audit to determine the proportion of patients receiving appropriate VTE prophylaxis according to best practice recommendations issued by the Australian and New Zealand Working Party on the Management and Prevention of Venous Thromboembolism (ANZ-WP recommendations), followed by a 4-month education intervention program and a post intervention audit. The primary endpoint was to compare the proportion of patients being appropriately managed based on their risk profile between the two audits.

RESULTS

A total of 8774 patients (audit 1; 4399 and audit 2; 4375) were included in the study, most (82.2% audit 1; and 81.0% audit 2) were high risk based on ANZ-WP recommendations. At baseline 37.9% of high risk patients were receiving appropriate thromboprophylaxis. This increased to 54.1% in the post intervention audit (absolute improvement 16%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 11.7%, 20.5%). As a result of the nurse educator program, the likelihood of high risk patients being treated according to ANZ-WP recommendations increased significantly (OR 1.96; 1.62, 2.37).

CONCLUSION

Utilization of VTE prophylaxis amongst hospitalized medical patients can be significantly improved by implementation of a multifaceted educational program coordinated by a dedicated nurse practitioner.

Reliability of a point-based VTE risk assessment tool in the hands of medical residents

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolic events (VTE) are a significant cause of mortality in hospitalized medical and surgical patients. Despite recommendations and guidelines, current evidence demonstrates that VTE prophylaxis remains underutilized in at-risk patients. The process of providing VTE prophylaxis begins with assessing each patient's VTE risk. Using an individualized, point-based protocol in the assessment process is a complex task, and might contribute to variability in VTE prescribing behavior. There are no published data on how reliably residents can perform risk assessment and prophylaxis using a point-based VTE risk assessment tool.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to determine inter-rater reliability of a point-based risk assessment tool by residents early in the academic year.

DESIGN

The design was a cross-sectional-cohort observational study.

SETTING

The site was an academic medical center.

PATIENTS

Case-based clinical vignettes were used.

INTERVENTIONS

Verbal instructions were given to medical residents about how to apply our hospital's point-based VTE risk assessment tool.

MEASUREMENTS

Interobserver agreement was measured of: 1) risk score, 2) risk-stratification, 3) identification of contraindications, 4) VTE prophylaxis plan, and 5) resident adherence to the protocol.

RESULTS

The intra-class correlation (ICC) for the total risk score was 0.66 and the kappa coefficient for risk stratification was 0.51. The kappa scores for absolute and relative contraindications were 0.29 and 0.23, respectively. The kappa score for the VTE plan was 0.28.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined that, following brief instructions early in the academic year, a point-based VTE risk assessment tool has only fair to moderate inter-rater reliability, with suboptimal adherence to the protocol. Both might lead to underutilization of VTE prevention strategies.

Prevention of venous thromboembolism and safe use of heparin in Spanish hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To assess compliance with basic and actionable indicators in relation to prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and safe use of heparin.

DESIGN

We built, pilot tested and measured a set of evidence-based structure (existence of guidelines) and process (risk assessment for VTE, and dose adjustment to patient weight and renal function when prescribing heparin) indicators in a nation-wide random sample of 22 hospitals. Compliance with process indicators is estimated at national level and by groups of hospitals (stratified by size). At hospital level, compliance is assessed with Lot Quality Acceptance Sampling, for 85% compliance standard (α ≤ 0.05), 55% threshold (β ≤ 0.10). Contents of existing guidelines are analyzed, and their influence on performance is assessed using logistic regression.

SETTING

Acute care hospitals in Spain.

INTERVENTIONS

None

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Problem identification through indicators assessment.

RESULTS

Less than half of hospitals have guidelines and their contents are very variable and incomplete. No hospital complies with the standard for VTE prevention and only one for heparin dose adjustment. Nationally, VTE risk assessment is performed in 5.8% of patients (95% CI: 5.6-6.0), and heparin dose is explicitly adjusted in 17.5% (95% CI: 16.8-18.2). Performance is relatively higher in large hospitals and it is associated with the existence of guidelines for VTE prevention (OR: 8.3; 95% CI: 2.1-32.1).

CONCLUSIONS

We have identified some actionable contributing factors to safety problems using evidence-based structure and process indicators. Explicit process design and key clinical interventions (risk assessment for VTE and heparin dose adjustment) should be addressed to improve the current situation.