Sticker reminders improve thromboprophylaxis appropriateness in hospitalized patients

An update on the global use of risk assessment models and thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients with medical illnesses from the World Thrombosis Day steering committee: Systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. The majority of VTE events are hospital-associated. In 2008, the Epidemiologic International Day for the Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism in the Acute Hospital Care Setting (ENDORSE) multinational cross-sectional study reported that only approximately 40% of medical patients at risk of VTE received adequate thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

In our systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed at providing updated figures concerning the use of thromboprophylaxis globally. We focused on: (a) the frequency of patients with an indication to thromboprophylaxis according with individual models; (b) the use of adequate thromboprophylaxis; and (c) reported contraindications to thromboprophylaxis. Observational nonrandomized studies or surveys focusing on medically ill patients were considered eligible.

RESULTS

After screening, we included 27 studies from 20 countries for a total of 137 288 patients. Overall, 50.5% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 41.9-59.1, I2 99%) of patients had an indication to thromboprophylaxis: of these, 54.5% (95% CI: 46.2-62.6, I2 99%) received adequate thromboprophylaxis. The use of adequate thromboprophylaxis was 66.8% in Europe (95% CI: 50.7-81.1, I2 98%), 44.9% in Africa (95% CI: 31.8-58.4, I2 96%), 37.6% in Asia (95% CI: 25.7-50.3, I2 97%), 58.3% in South America (95% CI: 31.1-83.1, I2 99%), and 68.6% in North America (95% CI: 64.9-72.6, I2 96%). No major differences in adequate thromboprophylaxis use were found across risk assessment models. Bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and renal/hepatic failure were the most frequently reported contraindications to thromboprophylaxis.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of anticoagulants for VTE prevention has been proven effective and safe, but thromboprophylaxis prescriptions are still unsatisfactory among hospitalized medically ill patients around the globe with marked geographical differences.

Improved utilisation of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in renal-impaired patients following a clinical pharmacist intervention

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the role of the clinical pharmacist in improving venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis prescription in patients with renal impairment (RI).

METHODS

This was an interventional cross-sectional study conducted in a nephrology ward. Patients' risk scores for VTE and bleeding during hospitalisation (evaluated by the Caprini Risk Assessment Model (RAM), Padua Prediction Score and IMPROVE Bleeding Risk Score, respectively), and the rate of VTE prophylaxis administration to patients, were evaluated before and after a clinical pharmacist's intervention.

RESULTS

In the pre-intervention phase, 34.8% of high-VTE-risk patients, of whom 12.5% were also at high risk of bleeding, received pharmacological prophylaxis. Moreover, 22.2% of low-VTE-risk patients received prophylaxis. In the intervention phase, prophylaxis was administered to all high-risk patients (mechanical prophylaxis in 7% of patients with a high risk of both VTE and bleeding, and heparin in the remainder) and to 3.3% of those at low risk of VTE.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical pharmacist's intervention using RAMs can improve the rate of thrombosis prophylaxis prescription in patients with RI who have a high risk of VTE.

Sticking to minimum standards: implementing antibiotic stewardship in intensive care

BACKGROUND

In Australia, antimicrobial stewardship programmes are a compulsory component of hospital accreditation. Good documentation around anti-microbial prescribing aids communication and can improve prescribing practice in environments with multiple decision makers.

AIM

This study aims to develop and implement an intervention to improve antimicrobial prescribing practice in a 24-bed intensive care unit in a tertiary referral adult hospital.

METHODS

We conducted a four-phase (observation, reflection, implementation, evaluation) prospective collaborative before-after quality improvement study. Baseline audits and surveys of antimicrobial prescribing practices identified barriers to and enablers of good prescribing practice. A customised intervention was then implemented over 6 weeks and included a yellow medication record sticker, quarterly education sessions and intensive care unit-specific empiric antimicrobial prescribing guidelines. Post-implementation, the effects were monitored by serial antimicrobial prescribing audits for 1 year. The primary outcomes were clear documentation of the start date, the planned stop date or review date and the indication for an antibiotic. These were all considered the 'minimum standards' for an antimicrobial prescription on the medication record.

RESULTS

Documentation of minimum standards specifically addressed by the sticker improved (start date (72% to 90%, P < 0.001), stop date (16% to 63%, P < 0.001), antimicrobial indication documented on medication chart (58% to 83%, P < 0.01)). Overall, adherence to all three minimum standards (start date, stop date and indication) improved from 41/306 (13%) to 306/492 (63%) (P < 0.001). One-year post-implementation, the yellow sticker had become embedded into daily practice.

CONCLUSION

A systematic approach to quality improvement combined with the implementation of a tailored, multi-faceted intervention can improve antimicrobial prescribing practices.

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.

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.

AssessMent of ProphylAxis for VenouS ThromboembolIsm in Hospitalized Patients

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) accounts for several cases of in-hospital mortality (over 100 000 deaths annually in the West). Despite the existence of effective prophylaxis guidelines for at-risk patients, the guidelines adherence is missing. Methods: We evaluated the thromboprophylaxis reception and appropriateness based on the eighth edition of the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines on VTE prophylaxis, among hospitalized patients of a World Health Organization (WHO)-collaborating teaching hospital in a 3-month period. Results: From the 904 evaluated cases, 481 entered the study. Appropriate decision on whether to prophylaxe or not, was made in 305 (63.40%), however, complete appropriateness (considering correct regimen type, dosing, and duration) was seen only in 229 patients (47.60%). The ACCP risk for VTE was the strongest predictor of thromboprophylaxis prescription (odds ratio [OR]: 2.62, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.35-5.05). Conclusions: Our thromboprophylaxis results were comparable to that of Western countries. Improved thromboprophylaxis appropriateness, which requires improving the physicians' thromboprophylaxis awareness and knowledge, could reduce the rate of in-hospital VTE and translate into better patient care.

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.