Adequacy of venous thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients (IMPART): multisite comparison of different clinical decision support systems

Risk Assessment Models for Venous Thromboembolism in Medical Inpatients

Importance

Thromboprophylaxis is recommended for medical inpatients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). Risk assessment models (RAMs) have been developed to stratify VTE risk, but a prospective head-to-head comparison of validated RAMs is lacking.

Objectives

To prospectively validate an easy-to-use RAM, the simplified Geneva score, and compare its prognostic performance with previously validated RAMs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This prospective cohort study was conducted from June 18, 2020, to January 4, 2022, with a 90-day follow-up. A total of 4205 consecutive adults admitted to the general internal medicine departments of 3 Swiss university hospitals for hospitalization for more than 24 hours due to acute illness were screened for eligibility; 1352 without therapeutic anticoagulation were included.

Exposures

At admission, items of 4 RAMs (ie, the simplified and original Geneva score, the Padua score, and the IMPROVE [International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism] score) were collected. Patients were stratified into high and low VTE risk groups according to each RAM.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Symptomatic VTE within 90 days.

Results

Of 1352 medical inpatients (median age, 67 years [IQR, 54-77 years]; 762 men [55.4%]), 28 (2.1%) experienced VTE. Based on the simplified Geneva score, 854 patients (63.2%) were classified as high risk, with a 90-day VTE risk of 2.6% (n = 22; 95% CI, 1.7%-3.9%), and 498 patients (36.8%) were classified as low risk, with a 90-day VTE risk of 1.2% (n = 6; 95% CI, 0.6%-2.6%). Sensitivity of the simplified Geneva score was 78.6% (95% CI, 60.5%-89.8%) and specificity was 37.2% (95% CI, 34.6%-39.8%); the positive likelihood ratio of the simplified Geneva score was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.03-1.52) and the negative likelihood ratio was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.28-1.18). In head-to-head comparisons, sensitivity was highest for the original Geneva score (82.1%; 95% CI, 64.4%-92.1%), while specificity was highest for the IMPROVE score (70.4%; 95% CI, 67.9%-72.8%). After adjusting the VTE risk for thromboprophylaxis use and site, there was no significant difference between the high-risk and low-risk groups based on the simplified Geneva score (subhazard ratio, 2.04 [95% CI, 0.83-5.05]; P = .12) and other RAMs. Discriminative performance was poor for all RAMs, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve ranging from 53.8% (95% CI, 51.1%-56.5%) for the original Geneva score to 58.1% (95% CI, 55.4%-60.7%) for the simplified Geneva score.

Conclusions and Relevance

This head-to-head comparison of validated RAMs found suboptimal accuracy and prognostic performance of the simplified Geneva score and other RAMs to predict hospital-acquired VTE in medical inpatients. Clinical usefulness of existing RAMs is questionable, highlighting the need for more accurate VTE prediction strategies.

System-Wide Thromboprophylaxis Interventions for Hospitalized Patients at Risk of Venous Thromboembolism: Focus on Cross-Platform Clinical Decision Support

Thromboprophylaxis of hospitalized patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) presents challenges owing to patient heterogeneity and lack of adoption of evidence-based methods. Intuitive practices for thromboprophylaxis have resulted in many patients being inappropriately prophylaxed. We conducted a narrative review summarizing system-wide thromboprophylaxis interventions in hospitalized patients. Multiple interventions for thromboprophylaxis have been tested, including multifaceted approaches such as national VTE prevention programs with audits, pre-printed order entry, passive alerts (either human or electronic), and more recently, the use of active clinical decision support (CDS) tools incorporated into electronic health records (EHRs). Multifaceted health-system and order entry interventions have shown mixed results in their ability to increase appropriate thromboprophylaxis and reduce VTE unless mandated through a national VTE prevention program, though the latter approach is potentially costly and effort- and time-dependent. Studies utilizing passive human or electronic alerts have also shown mixed results in increasing appropriate thromboprophylaxis and reducing VTE. Recently, a universal cloud-based and EHR-agnostic CDS VTE tool incorporating a validated VTE risk score revealed high adoption and effectiveness in increasing appropriate thromboprophylaxis and reducing major thromboembolism. Active CDS tools hold promise in improving appropriate thromboprophylaxis, especially with further refinement and widespread implementation within various EHRs and clinical workflows.

Contemporary adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients in Switzerland: a bi-centric prospective cohort

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism is a dreaded complication of hospitalised patients, with associated morbidity, mortality and increased healthcare costs. Previous studies have shown that pharmacological thromboprophylaxis, though effective, is inadequately administered in a large proportion of medical inpatients.

STUDY AIMS

Our primary aim was to evaluate the contemporary adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients admitted to two Swiss hospitals (a university hospital and a regional hospital). The secondary aim was to estimate the 90-day incidence of relevant thrombotic and bleeding events.

METHODS

In this prospective cohort, patients were recruited at the University Hospital of Geneva and the Regional Hospital of Lugano between September 2020 and February 2021 and followed for 90 days for venous thromboembolism and bleeding events. The adequacy of thromboprophylaxis (pharmacological and/or mechanical) at 24h after hospital admission was evaluated according to the simplified Geneva risk score for hospital-associated venous thromboembolism.

RESULTS

Among 200 participants (100 at each site, mean age of 65 years), 57.5% were deemed at high risk of venous thromboembolism at admission. Thromboprophylaxis was adequate in 59.5% (95% CI 52.3-66.4%). Among high-risk and low-risk inpatients, thromboprophylaxis was adequate in 71.3% and 43.5%, respectively, with differences between sites. At 90 days, risks of adjudicated venous thromboembolism, major bleeding and mortality were 1.5%, 1.5% and 6.0%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Despite the extensive literature on thromboprophylaxis, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis has not improved and remains insufficient among medical inpatients. Implementation and evaluation of clinical decision support systems are critically needed in this field.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov number: NCT05306821.

Overuse and underuse of thromboprophylaxis in medical inpatients

Background

Thromboprophylaxis (TPX) prescription is recommended in medical inpatients categorized as high risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE) by validated risk assessment models (RAMs), but how various RAMs differ in categorizing patients in risk groups, and whether the choice of RAM influences estimates of appropriate TPX use is unknown.

Objectives

To determine the proportion of medical inpatients categorized as high or low risk according to validated RAMs, and to investigate the appropriateness of TPX prescription.

Methods

This is a prospective cohort study of acutely ill medical inpatients from 3 Swiss university hospitals. Participants were categorized as high or low risk of VTE by validated RAMs (ie, the Padua, the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism, simplified, and original Geneva scores). We assessed prescription of any TPX at baseline. We considered TPX prescription in high-risk and no TPX prescription in low-risk patients as appropriate.

Results

Among 1352 medical inpatients, the proportion categorized as high risk ranged from 29.8% with the International Medical Prevention Registry on Venous Thromboembolism score to 66.1% with the original Geneva score. Overall, 24.6% were consistently categorized as high risk, and 26.3% as low risk by all 4 RAMs. Depending on the RAM used, TPX prescription was appropriate in 58.7% to 63.3% of high-risk (ie, 36.7%-41.3% underuse) and 52.4% to 62.8% of low-risk patients (ie, 37.2%-47.6% overuse).

Conclusion

The proportion of medical inpatients considered as high or low VTE risk varied widely according to different RAMs. Only half of patients were consistently categorized in the same risk group by all RAMs. While TPX remains underused in high-risk patients, overuse in low-risk patients is even more pronounced.

Clinical decision support in cardiovascular medicine

Despite considerable progress in tackling cardiovascular disease over the past 50 years, many gaps in the quality of care for cardiovascular disease remain. Multiple missed opportunities have been identified at every step in the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease, such as failure to make risk factor modifications, failure to diagnose cardiovascular disease, and failure to use proper evidence based treatments. With the digital transformation of medicine and advances in health information technology, clinical decision support (CDS) tools offer promise to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of delivery of cardiovascular care. However, to date, the promise of CDS delivering scalable and sustained value for patient care in clinical practice has not been realized. This article reviews the evidence on key emerging questions around the development, implementation, and regulation of CDS with a focus on cardiovascular disease. It first reviews evidence on the effectiveness of CDS on healthcare process and clinical outcomes related to cardiovascular disease and design features associated with CDS effectiveness. It then reviews the barriers encountered during implementation of CDS in cardiovascular care, with a focus on unintended consequences and strategies to promote successful implementation. Finally, it reviews the legal and regulatory environment of CDS with specific examples for cardiovascular disease.

Decision-support tools via mobile devices to improve quality of care in primary healthcare settings

BACKGROUND

The ubiquity of mobile devices has made it possible for clinical decision-support systems (CDSS) to become available to healthcare providers on handheld devices at the point-of-care, including in low- and middle-income countries. The use of CDSS by providers can potentially improve adherence to treatment protocols and patient outcomes. However, the evidence on the effect of the use of CDSS on mobile devices needs to be synthesized. This review was carried out to support a World Health Organization (WHO) guideline that aimed to inform investments on the use of decision-support tools on digital devices to strengthen primary healthcare.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of digital clinical decision-support systems (CDSS) accessible via mobile devices by primary healthcare providers in the context of primary care settings.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, Global Index Medicus, POPLINE, and two trial registries from 1 January 2000 to 9 October 2020. We conducted a grey literature search using mHealthevidence.org and issued a call for papers through popular digital health communities of practice. Finally, we conducted citation searches of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Study design: we included randomized trials, including full-text studies, conference abstracts, and unpublished data irrespective of publication status or language of publication.  Types of participants: we included studies of all cadres of healthcare providers, including lay health workers and other individuals (administrative, managerial, and supervisory staff) involved in the delivery of primary healthcare services using clinical decision-support tools; and studies of clients or patients receiving care from primary healthcare providers using digital decision-support tools. Types of interventions: we included studies comparing digital CDSS accessible via mobile devices with non-digital CDSS or no intervention, in the context of primary care. CDSS could include clinical protocols, checklists, and other job-aids which supported risk prioritization of patients. Mobile devices included mobile phones of any type (but not analogue landline telephones), as well as tablets, personal digital assistants, and smartphones. We excluded studies where digital CDSS were used on laptops or integrated with electronic medical records or other types of longitudinal tracking of clients.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

A machine learning classifier that gave each record a probability score of being a randomized trial screened all search results. Two review authors screened titles and abstracts of studies with more than 10% probability of being a randomized trial, and one review author screened those with less than 10% probability of being a randomized trial. We followed standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence for the most important outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight randomized trials across varying healthcare contexts in the USA,. India, China, Guatemala, Ghana, and Kenya, met our inclusion criteria. A range of healthcare providers (facility and community-based, formally trained, and lay workers) used digital CDSS. Care was provided for the management of specific conditions such as cardiovascular disease, gastrointestinal risk assessment, and maternal and child health. The certainty of evidence ranged from very low to moderate, and we often downgraded evidence for risk of bias and imprecision. We are uncertain of the effect of this intervention on providers' adherence to recommended practice due to the very low certainty evidence (2 studies, 185 participants). The effect of the intervention on patients' and clients' health behaviours such as smoking and treatment adherence is mixed, with substantial variation across outcomes for similar types of behaviour (2 studies, 2262 participants). The intervention probably makes little or no difference to smoking rates among people at risk of cardiovascular disease but probably increases other types of desired behaviour among patients, such as adherence to treatment. The effect of the intervention on patients'/clients' health status and well-being  is also mixed (5 studies, 69,767 participants). It probably makes little or no difference to some types of health outcomes, but we are uncertain about other health outcomes, including maternal and neonatal deaths, due to very low-certainty evidence. The intervention may slightly improve patient or client acceptability and satisfaction (1 study, 187 participants). We found no studies that reported the time between the presentation of an illness and appropriate management, provider acceptability or satisfaction, resource use, or unintended consequences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain about the effectiveness of mobile phone-based decision-support tools on several outcomes, including adherence to recommended practice. None of the studies had a quality of care framework and focused only on specific health areas.   We need well-designed research that takes a systems lens to assess these issues.

Risk-assessment models for VTE and bleeding in hospitalized medical patients: an overview of systematic reviews

Multiple risk-assessment models (RAMs) for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in hospitalized medical patients have been developed. To inform the 2018 American Society of Hematology (ASH) guidelines on VTE, we conducted an overview of systematic reviews to identify and summarize evidence related to RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We searched Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Database, Medline, and Embase from 2005 through June 2017 and then updated the search in January 2020 to identify systematic reviews that included RAMs for VTE and bleeding in medical inpatients. We conducted study selection, data abstraction and quality assessment (using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews [ROBIS] tool) independently and in duplicate. We described the characteristics of the reviews and their included studies, and compared the identified RAMs using narrative synthesis. Of 15 348 citations, we included 2 systematic reviews, of which 1 had low risk of bias. The reviews included 19 unique studies reporting on 15 RAMs. Seven of the RAMs were derived using individual patient data in which risk factors were included based on their predictive ability in a regression analysis. The other 8 RAMs were empirically developed using consensus approaches, risk factors identified from a literature review, and clinical expertise. The RAMs that have been externally validated include the Caprini, Geneva, IMPROVE, Kucher, and Padua RAMs. The Padua, Geneva, and Kucher RAMs have been evaluated in impact studies that reported an increase in appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates. Our findings informed the ASH guidelines. They also aim to guide health care practitioners in their decision-making processes regarding appropriate individual prophylactic management.

Impact of electronic health records on predefined safety outcomes in patients admitted to hospital: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Review available evidence for impact of electronic health records (EHRs) on predefined patient safety outcomes in interventional studies to identify gaps in current knowledge and design interventions for future research.

DESIGN

Scoping review to map existing evidence and identify gaps for future research.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Trial registers.

STUDY SELECTION

Eligibility criteria: We conducted a scoping review of bibliographic databases and the grey literature of randomised and non-randomised trials describing interventions targeting a list of fourteen predefined areas of safety. The search was limited to manuscripts published between January 2008 and December 2018 of studies in adult inpatient settings and complemented by a targeted search for studies using a sample of EHR vendors. Studies were categorised according to methodology, intervention characteristics and safety outcome.Results from identified studies were grouped around common themes of safety measures.

RESULTS

The search yielded 583 articles of which 24 articles were included. The identified studies were largely from US academic medical centres, heterogeneous in study conduct, definitions, treatment protocols and study outcome reporting. Of the 24 included studies effective safety themes included medication reconciliation, decision support for prescribing medications, communication between teams, infection prevention and measures of EHR-specific harm. Heterogeneity of the interventions and study characteristics precluded a systematic meta-analysis. Most studies reported process measures and not patient-level safety outcomes: We found no or limited evidence in 13 of 14 predefined safety areas, with good evidence limited to medication safety.

CONCLUSIONS

Published evidence for EHR impact on safety outcomes from interventional studies is limited and does not permit firm conclusions regarding the full safety impact of EHRs or support recommendations about ideal design features. The review highlights the need for greater transparency in quality assurance of existing EHRs and further research into suitable metrics and study designs.

Underuse of medical thromboprophylaxis in mobile elderly inpatients: The SWITCO65+ cohort

BACKGROUND

Hospital-associated venous thromboembolism (HA-VTE) can be prevented by pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis. Thrombotic risk assessment models (RAMs) are essential tools to improve inadequately prescribed thromboprophylaxis. Among cases of HA-VTE, our study objectives are to explore the classifications of available thrombosis RAMs, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis and risk factors for inadequate thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

We identified cases of HA-VTE occurring during medical hospitalizations within a multicenter Swiss venous thromboembolism (VTE) cohort (2009-2013). We calculated the proportion of VTE cases deemed at high risk with 4 VTE RAMs (Geneva, Simplified Geneva, Padua, and Improve) and the adequacy of administered pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis, and explored risk factors for underprescription of thromboprophylaxis in high-risk inpatients.

RESULTS

Among 66 medical inpatients with HA-VTE, 60.6% had pulmonary embolism. The sensitivities of the Geneva, Simplified Geneva, Padua, and Improve RAMs were 86.4%, 80.3%, 72.7%, and 57.6%, respectively. The proportion of inadequate thromboprophylaxis was high, as 62.5%-71.1% of high-risk inpatients had not received it. Among the high-risk group according to the Simplified Geneva RAM, absence of immobilization was the only variable significantly associated with an inadequate use of thromboprophylaxis (odds ratio, 3.59; 95% confidence interval, 1.08-11.88).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a dramatically high proportion of inadequate medical thromboprophylaxis among inpatients who suffered from HA-VTE. This reinforces the need for global and local quality-improvement efforts to promote adequate use of thromboprophylaxis in elderly inpatients. Mobility may favor the underuse of thromboprophylaxis, and clinicians should stay alert to other thrombotic risk factors in mobile inpatients.

Impact of pharmacy-supported interventions on proportion of patients receiving non-indicated acid suppressive therapy upon discharge: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the impact of pharmacy-supported interventions on the proportion of patients discharged from the hospital on inappropriate acid suppressive therapy (AST).

Methods

To identify studies, the following databases were systematically searched on October 14^th, 2018 and repeated on September 12^th, 2019: Ovid MEDLINE(R) and In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily, Embase.com, CINAHL, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL (EBSCO), and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible studies consisted of adults, intervention and historical/usual care groups, description of active pharmacy-supported intervention, and proportion of patients discharged on inappropriate AST. Qualitative assessments and quantitative analyses were performed. Modified funnel plot analysis assessed heterogeneity. Preferred reporting items of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) methodology was used to evaluate studies in this review.

Results

Seventeen publications resulting in 16 studies were included in the review. Using random effects model, meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in the odds of being discharged on inappropriate AST from the hospital in the pharmacist-supported intervention arm versus comparator (Odds Ratio 0.33 [95%CI 0.20 to 0.53]), with significant heterogeneity (I² = 86%). Eleven studies favored pharmacy-supported interventions, four were inconclusive and one favored usual care. Using modified funnel plot analysis, our final evaluation was distilled to 11 studies and revealed a similar outcome (OR 0.36 [95%CI 0.27 to 0.48]), but with less heterogeneity (I² = 36%).

Conclusion

This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that pharmacy-supported interventions were associated with a significantly reduced probability of patients discharged on inappropriate AST. However, heterogeneity was high and may affect interpretation of results. Using funnel plot optimization method, three positive and two negative studies were objectively removed from analyses, resulting in a similar effect size, but with less heterogeneity. To improve study quality, future researchers should consider utilizing a pre-post, multi-arm, prospective design with sampling randomization, training of data extractors (preferably two extractors), re-evaluating a small dataset to check for agreement and providing a comprehensive methodology in subsequent publications.

External validation of the simplified Geneva risk assessment model for hospital-associated venous thromboembolism in the Padua cohort

BACKGROUND

The simplified Geneva risk assessment model (RAM) predicts the risk of hospitalization-related venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients in its developmental cohort but has not been validated.

OBJECTIVES

To externally validate the simplified Geneva RAM.

PATIENTS/METHODS

For this secondary analysis of a prospective cohort set in Padua, we calculated the simplified Geneva RAM for all participants. They were followed up for 90 days for the occurrence of adjudicated VTE. Thirty- and 90-day risks of VTE were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, and categories of risks compared with a Cox regression model adjusted for the use of thromboprophylaxis.

RESULTS

Among 1180 medical inpatients, the 90-day risk of symptomatic VTE was 3.1%. The simplified Geneva RAM classified 56.9% as high risk (≥3 points; 90-day risk of VTE of 5.2%) and 43.1% as low risk (<3 points; 90-day risk of VTE of 0.4%). Compared with low-risk participants, high-risk participants had an 18-fold greater risk of VTE than low-risk participants (hazard ratio [HR] 17.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] 4.3-74.7). A very high-risk category (≥7 points) identified 5.3% of participants with a 9.5% probability of VTE at 90 days.

CONCLUSIONS

In this external validation study, we confirm the excellent discrimination and clinically adequate calibration of the simplified Geneva RAM as a stratification tool to guide the use of thromboprophylaxis.

Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes

BACKGROUND

Health professionals sometimes do not use the best evidence to treat their patients, in part due to unconscious acts of omission and information overload. Reminders help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know, or by presenting information in a different and more accessible format. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper are defined as information given to the health professional with each patient or encounter, provided on paper, in which no computer is involved in the production or delivery of the reminder. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper are relatively cheap interventions, and are especially relevant in settings where electronic clinical records are not widely available and affordable. This review is one of three Cochrane Reviews focused on the effectiveness of reminders in health care.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the effectiveness of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper in changing professional practice and improving patient outcomes. 2. To explore whether a number of potential effect modifiers influence the effectiveness of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers on 5 December 2018. We searched grey literature, screened individual journals, conference proceedings and relevant systematic reviews, and reviewed reference lists and cited references of included studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised and non-randomised trials assessing the impact of manually-generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention (compared with usual care) or added to one or more co-interventions as a multicomponent intervention (compared with the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component) on professional practice or patients' outcomes. We also included randomised and non-randomised trials comparing manually-generated reminders with other quality improvement (QI) interventions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data independently. We extracted the primary outcome as defined by the authors or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes in each study. We then calculated the median percentage improvement and interquartile range across the included studies that reported improvement related outcomes, and assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 63 studies (41 cluster-randomised trials, 18 individual randomised trials, and four non-randomised trials) that met all inclusion criteria. Fifty-seven studies reported usable data (64 comparisons). The studies were mainly located in North America (42 studies) and the UK (eight studies). Fifty-four studies took place in outpatient/ambulatory settings. The clinical areas most commonly targeted were cardiovascular disease management (11 studies), cancer screening (10 studies) and preventive care (10 studies), and most studies had physicians as their target population (57 studies). General management of a clinical condition (17 studies), test-ordering (14 studies) and prescription (10 studies) were the behaviours more commonly targeted by the intervention. Forty-eight studies reported changes in professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes (e.g. compliance with guidelines recommendations), 16 reported those changes measured as continuous process-of-care outcomes (e.g. number of days with catheters), eight reported dichotomous patient outcomes (e.g. mortality rates) and five reported continuous patient outcomes (e.g. mean systolic blood pressure). Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper probably improve professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes) compared with usual care (median improvement 8.45% (IQR 2.54% to 20.58%); 39 comparisons, 40,346 participants; moderate certainty of evidence) and may make little or no difference to continuous process-of-care outcomes (8 comparisons, 3263 participants; low certainty of evidence). Adding manually-generated paper reminders to one or more QI co-interventions may slightly improve professional practice measured as dichotomous process adherence outcomes (median improvement 4.24% (IQR -1.09% to 5.50%); 12 comparisons, 25,359 participants; low certainty of evidence) and probably slightly improve professional practice measured as continuous outcomes (median improvement 0.28 (IQR 0.04 to 0.51); 2 comparisons, 12,372 participants; moderate certainty of evidence). Compared with other QI interventions, manually-generated reminders may slightly decrease professional practice measured as process adherence outcomes (median decrease 7.9% (IQR -0.7% to 11%); 14 comparisons, 21,274 participants; low certainty of evidence). We are uncertain whether manually-generated reminders delivered on paper, compared with usual care or with other QI intervention, lead to better or worse patient outcomes (dichotomous or continuous), as the certainty of the evidence is very low (10 studies, 13 comparisons). Reminders added to other QI interventions may make little or no difference to patient outcomes (dichotomous or continuous) compared with the QI alone (2 studies, 2 comparisons). Regarding resource use, studies reported additional costs per additional point of effectiveness gained, but because of the different currencies and years used the relevance of those figures is uncertain. None of the included studies reported outcomes related to harms or adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper as a single intervention probably lead to small to moderate increases in outcomes related to adherence to clinical recommendations, and they could be used as a single QI intervention. It is uncertain whether reminders should be added to other QI intervention already in place in the health system, although the effects may be positive. If other QI interventions, such as patient or computerised reminders, are available, they should be preferred over manually-generated reminders, but under close evaluation in order to decrease uncertainty about their potential effect.

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

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. While numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have shown that the appropriate use of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients at risk for VTE is safe, effective, and cost-effective, thromboprophylaxis remains underused or inappropriately used. Our previous review suggested that system-wide interventions, such as education, alerts, and multifaceted interventions were more effective at improving the prescribing of thromboprophylaxis than relying on individual providers' behaviors. However, 47 of the 55 included studies in our previous review were observational in design. Thus, an update to our systematic review, focused on the higher level of evidence of RCTs only, was warranted.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of system-wide interventions designed to increase the implementation of thromboprophylaxis and decrease the incidence of VTE in hospitalized adult medical and surgical patients at risk for VTE, focusing on RCTs only.

SEARCH METHODS

Our research librarian conducted a systematic literature search of MEDLINE Ovid, and subsequently translated it to CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase Ovid, BIOSIS Previews Ovid, CINAHL, Web of Science, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE; in the Cochrane Library), NHS Economic Evaluation Database (EED; in the Cochrane Library), LILACS, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to 7 January 2017. We also screened reference lists of relevant review articles. We identified 12,920 potentially relevant records.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all types of RCTs, with random or quasi-random methods of allocation of interventions, which either randomized individuals (e.g. parallel group, cross-over, or factorial design RCTs), or groups of individuals (cluster RCTs (CRTs)), which aimed to increase the use of prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis, or decrease the occurrence of VTE in hospitalized adult patients. We excluded observational studies, studies in which the intervention was simply distribution of published guidelines, and studies whose interventions were not clearly described. Studies could be in any language.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We collected data on the following outcomes: the number of participants who received prophylaxis or appropriate prophylaxis (as defined by study authors), the occurrence of any VTE (symptomatic or asymptomatic), mortality, and safety outcomes, such as bleeding. We categorized the interventions into alerts (computer or human alerts), multifaceted interventions (combination of interventions that could include an alert component), educational interventions (e.g. grand rounds, courses), and preprinted orders (written predefined orders completed by the physician on paper or electronically). We meta-analyzed data across RCTs using a random-effects model. For CRTs, we pooled effect estimates (risk difference (RD) and risk ratio (RR), with 95% confidence interval (CI), adjusted for clustering, when possible. We pooled results if three or more trials were available for a particular intervention. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

From the 12,920 records identified by our search, we included 13 RCTs (N = 35,997 participants) in our qualitative analysis and 11 RCTs (N = 33,207 participants) in our meta-analyses.

PRIMARY OUTCOME

Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (RD 21%, 95% CI 15% to 27%; three studies; 5057 participants; I² = 75%; low-certainty evidence). The substantial statistical heterogeneity may be in part explained by patient types, type of hospital, and type of alert. Subgroup analyses were not feasible due to the small number of studies included in the meta-analysis.Multifaceted interventions were associated with a small increase in the proportion of participants who received prophylaxis (cluster-adjusted RD 4%, 95% CI 2% to 6%; five studies; 9198 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). Multifaceted interventions with an alert component were found to be more effective than multifaceted interventions that did not include an alert, although there were not enough studies to conduct a pooled analysis.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Alerts were associated with an increase in the proportion of participants who received appropriate prophylaxis (RD 16%, 95% CI 12% to 20%; three studies; 1820 participants; I² = 0; moderate-certainty evidence). Alerts were also associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE at three months (RR 64%, 95% CI 47% to 86%; three studies; 5353 participants; I² = 15%; low-certainty evidence). Computer alerts were associated with a reduction in the rate of symptomatic VTE, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We reviewed RCTs that implemented a variety of system-wide strategies aimed at improving thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients. We found increased prescription of prophylaxis associated with alerts and multifaceted interventions, and increased prescription of appropriate prophylaxis associated with alerts. While multifaceted interventions were found to be less effective than alerts, a multifaceted intervention with an alert was more effective than one without an alert. Alerts, particularly computer alerts, were associated with a reduction in symptomatic VTE at three months, although there were not enough studies to pool computer alerts and human alerts results separately.Our analysis was underpowered to assess the effect on mortality and safety outcomes, such as bleeding.The incomplete reporting of relevant study design features did not allow complete assessment of the certainty of the evidence. However, the certainty of the evidence for improvement in outcomes was judged to be better than for our previous review (low- to moderate-certainty evidence, compared to very low-certainty evidence for most outcomes). The results of our updated review will help physicians, hospital administrators, and policy makers make practical decisions about adopting specific system-wide measures to improve prescription of thromboprophylaxis, and ultimately prevent VTE in hospitalized patients.

Evaluation and management of thromboprophylaxis in Moroccan hospitals at national level: the Avail-MoNa study

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common clinical problem that is associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical practices in VTE prophylaxis in university and peripheral hospitals in Morocco. This is a national, cross-sectional, multicenter, observational study assessing the management of the VTE risk in selected Moroccan hospitals (four university and three peripheral). The thromboembolic risk of the selected patients was assessed according to the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines (2008). We hypothesized that interventions for VTE guideline implementation in those hospitals may improve prophylaxis use for hospitalized patients. A total of 1318 patients were analyzed: 467 (35.5%) medical and 851 (64.5%) surgical. The mean age of patients was 52.6 ± 16.5 years, and 52.7% were female. A total of 51.1% patients were considered to be at risk of VTE according to ACCP guidelines and were eligible for thromboprophylaxis (TP). Medical patients were more likely to present risk factors than surgical patients (53.6 vs. 50.7%, respectively). TP was prescribed for 53.1% of these patients, 57.4% in at-risk surgical patients and 50.3% in at-risk medical patients. TP was also prescribed for 42.9% of non-at-risk patients. The concordance between the recommended and the prescribed prophylaxis was poor for the total population (kappa = 0.110). TP did not improve sufficiently in our hospitals, even after implementation of the guidelines. New strategies are required to appropriately address TP in hospitalized patients.

Risk assessment models for venous thromboembolism in acutely ill medical patients

Although the use of thromboprophylaxis is recommended for acutely ill medical patients at increased risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE), it remains unclear which risk assessment model (RAM) should be routinely used to identify at-risk patients requiring thromboprophylaxis. We therefore aimed to describe existing RAMs, and to compare these tools in terms of validity and applicability for clinical decisionmaking. We performed a comprehensive systematic search in MEDLINE from the date of initiation until May 2016 for studies in acutely ill medical patients investigating validity of RAMs for VTE. Two reviewers independently screened the title, abstract, and full text, and evaluated the characteristics of studies, and the composition, evidence of validation, and results on validity of the RAMs. We included 11 studies assessing eight RAMs: 4-Element RAM, Caprini RAM, a full logistic model, Geneva risk score, IMPROVE-RAM, Kucher Model, a “Multivariable Model”, and Padua Prediction Score. The 4-Element RAM, IMPROVE-RAM, Multivariable Model, and full logistic model had derivation by identifying factors with predictive power. The other four RAMs were empirically generated based on consensus guidelines, published data, and clinical expertise. The Kucher Model, the Padua Prediction Score, the Geneva Risk Score and the IMPROVE-RAM underwent multicenter external validation. The Kucher Model, the Padua Prediction Score, and the Geneva Risk Score improved rates of thromboprophylaxis or clinical outcomes. In conclusion, existing RAMs to evaluate the need of thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients are difficult to compare and none fulfills the criteria of an ideal RAM. Nevertheless, the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis may be improved by implementing one of the validated RAMs.

Predictors of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients

Both, underuse and overuse of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised medical patients is common. We aimed to explore clinical factors associated with the use of pharmacological or mechanical thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients at high (Geneva Risk Score ≥ 3 points) vs low (Geneva Risk Score < 3 points) risk of venous thromboembolism. Overall, 1,478 hospitalised medical patients from eight large Swiss hospitals were enrolled in the prospective Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE) cohort study. The study is registered on ClinicalTrials. gov, number NCT01277536. Thromboprophylaxis increased stepwise with increasing Geneva Risk Score (p< 0.001). Among the 962 high-risk patients, 366 (38 %) received no thromboprophylaxis; cancer-associated thrombocytopenia (OR 4.78, 95 % CI 2.75–8.31, p< 0.001), active bleeding on admission (OR 2.88, 95 % CI 1.69–4.92, p< 0.001), and thrombocytopenia without cancer (OR 2.54, 95 % CI 1.31–4.95, p=0.006) were independently associated with the absence of prophylaxis. The use of thromboprophylaxis declined with increasing severity of thrombocytopenia (p=0.001). Among the 516 low-risk patients, 245 (48 %) received thromboprophylaxis; none of the investigated clinical factors predicted its use. In conclusion, in acutely ill medical patients, bleeding and thrombocytopenia were the most important factors for the absence of thromboprophylaxis among highrisk patients. The use of thromboprophylaxis among low-risk patients was inconsistent, without clearly identifiable predictors, and should be addressed in further research.

Multicentre validation of the Geneva Risk Score for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism

There is a need to validate risk assessment tools for hospitalised medical patients at risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). We investigated whether a predefined cut-off of the Geneva Risk Score, as compared to the Padua Prediction Score, accurately distinguishes low-risk from high-risk patients regardless of the use of thromboprophylaxis. In the multicentre, prospective Explicit ASsessment of Thromboembolic RIsk and Prophylaxis for Medical PATients in SwitzErland (ESTIMATE) cohort study, 1,478 hospitalised medical patients were enrolled of whom 637 (43%) did not receive thromboprophylaxis. The primary endpoint was symptomatic VTE or VTE-related death at 90 days. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01277536. According to the Geneva Risk Score, the cumulative rate of the primary endpoint was 3.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 2.2–4.6%) in 962 high-risk vs 0.6% (95% CI 0.2–1.9%) in 516 low-risk patients (p=0.002); among patients without prophylaxis, this rate was 3.5% vs 0.8% (p=0.029), respectively. In comparison, the Padua Prediction Score yielded a cumulative rate of the primary endpoint of 3.5% (95% CI 2.3–5.3%) in 714 high-risk vs 1.1% (95% CI 0.6–2.3%) in 764 lowrisk patients (p=0.002); among patients without prophylaxis, this rate was 3.2% vs 1.5% (p=0.130), respectively. Negative likelihood ratio was 0.28 (95% CI 0.10–0.83) for the Geneva Risk Score and 0.51 (95% CI 0.28–0.93) for the Padua Prediction Score. In conclusion, among hospitalised medical patients, the Geneva Risk Score predicted VTE and VTE-related mortality and compared favourably with the Padua Prediction Score, particularly for its accuracy to identify low-risk patients who do not require thromboprophylaxis.

Electronic alert system for improving appropriate thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients: a randomized controlled trial

Essentials Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients remains inconsistent. We implemented an electronic alert system featuring a validated risk assessment model for VTE. In this randomized controlled study, the e-alert system did not improve VTE prophylaxis. Many electronic alerts were ignored by ordering physicians.

SUMMARY

Background The use of thromboprophylaxis among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients remains inconsistent. Objective To improve thromboprophylaxis use by implementing a computer-based alert system combined with a Geneva Risk Score calculation tool in the electronic patient chart and order entry system. Patients/Methods Consecutive patients admitted to the general internal medicine wards of the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland were randomized to the alert group, in which an alert and the Geneva Risk Score calculation tool was issued in the electronic patient chart, or to the control group, in which no alert was issued. The primary endpoint was the rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis during hospital stay. Results Overall, 1593 patients (alert group, 804; control group, 789) were eligible for analysis. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 53-79 years) and 47% were female. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was administered to 536 (66.7%) patients from the alert group and to 526 (66.7%) patients from the control group. Among the 804 patients from the alert group, a total of 446 (55.5%) either had no score calculation by the physician in charge (n = 348) or had a calculated score result that was inconsistent with information from the patient chart (n = 98). Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was less often administered to patients with no score or an inconsistent score result than to 358 patients with a consistent score result (62.6% versus 71.8%). Conclusions The electronic alert (e-alert) system did not improve appropriate thromboprophylaxis, most likely because many e-alerts were ignored by ordering physicians. The use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in the control group was higher than expected.

Variation in Definitions of Immobility in Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis Clinical Trials in Medical Inpatients: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although immobility is a common risk factor for venous thromboembolism (VTE) in medical inpatients, lack of a consistent definition of this term may limit accurate assessment of VTE risk for thromboprophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To examine various definitions of immobility used in recent pharmacological thromboprophylaxis clinical trials.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed and relevant references from articles/reviews from 2008 to 2016 were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and other clinical studies involving adult hospitalized medical patients in acute care hospital settings that used the term immobility were selected. Two investigators independently abstracted data in duplicate, and accuracy was checked by a third investigator.

RESULTS

Twenty-one clinical studies were included. There was heterogeneity among individual VTE risk factors, with respect to the definition of immobility in medical inpatients in these trials. Thirteen studies utilized objective criteria to define "immobility" including duration (12 studies) and distance or time walked (6 studies). In contrast, 7 studies focused principally on subjective definitions (ie, describing the nature of immobility rather than specifying its quantitative measurement). Three RCTs vaguely defined the level of patient's immobility after hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Despite the well-known effectiveness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis for the prevention of VTE in acutely ill medical patients, there is no current consensus on how to define immobility. The heterogeneous nature of definitions of immobility has led to uncertainty about the importance of immobility in VTE risk assessment models. Although clinical studies have incorporated varying definitions of immobility into their inclusion criteria, immobility as a specific VTE risk factor has not been clearly defined.

The Prediction of the Risk Level of Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis through Artificial Neural Network

Background:

Venous thromboembolism is a common cause of mortality among hospitalized patients and yet it is preventable through detecting the precipitating factors and a prompt diagnosis by specialists. The present study has been carried out in order to assist specialists in the diagnosis and prediction of the risk level of pulmonary embolism in patients, by means of artificial neural network.

Method:

A number of 31 risk factors have been used in this study in order to evaluate the conditions of 294 patients hospitalized in 3 educational hospitals affiliated with Kerman University of Medical Sciences. Two types of artificial neural networks, namely Feed-Forward Back Propagation and Elman Back Propagation, were compared in this study.

Results:

Through an optimized artificial neural network model, an accuracy and risk level index of 93.23 percent was achieved and, subsequently, the results have been compared with those obtained from the perfusion scan of the patients. 86.61 percent of high risk patients diagnosed through perfusion scan diagnostic method were also diagnosed correctly through the method proposed in the present study.

Conclusions:

The results of this study can be a good resource for physicians, medical assistants, and healthcare staff to diagnose high risk patients more precisely and prevent the mortalities. Additionally, expenses and other unnecessary diagnostic methods such as perfusion scans can be efficiently reduced.

Multifaceted Intervention to Prevent Venous Thromboembolism in Patients Hospitalized for Acute Medical Illness: A Multicenter Cluster-Randomized Trial

Background

Misuse of thromboprophylaxis may increase preventable complications for hospitalized medical patients.

Objectives

To assess the net clinical benefit of a multifaceted intervention in emergency wards (educational lectures, posters, pocket cards, computerized clinical decision support systems and, where feasible, electronic reminders) for the prevention of venous thromboembolism.

Patients/Methods

Prospective cluster-randomized trial in 27 hospitals. After a pre-intervention period, centers were randomized as either intervention (n = 13) or control (n = 14). All patients over 40 years old, admitted to the emergency room, and hospitalized in a medical ward were included, totaling 1,402 (712 intervention and 690 control) and 15,351 (8,359 intervention and 6,992 control) in the pre-intervention and intervention periods, respectively.

Results

Symptomatic venous thromboembolism or major bleeding (primary outcome) occurred at 3 months in 3.1% and 3.2% of patients in the intervention and control groups, respectively (adjusted odds ratio: 1.02 [95% confidence interval: 0.78–1.34]). The rates of thromboembolism (1.9% vs. 1.9%), major bleedings (1.2% vs. 1.3%), and mortality (11.3% vs. 11.1%) did not differ between the groups. Between the pre-intervention and intervention periods, the proportion of patients who received prophylactic anticoagulant treatment more steeply increased in the intervention group (from 35.0% to 48.2%: +13.2%) than the control (40.7% to 44.1%: +3.4%), while the rate of adequate thromboprophylaxis remained stable in both groups (52.4% to 50.9%: -1.5%; 49.1% to 48.8%: -0.3%).

Conclusions

Our intervention neither improved adequate prophylaxis nor reduced the rates of clinical events. New strategies are required to improve thromboembolism prevention for hospitalized medical patients.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01212393

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in acutely ill hospitalized medical patients. A retrospective multicenter study

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the incidence of VTE in hospitalized medical patients and prophylaxis applied in accordance with the 8th ACCP guidelines and the National PRETEMED guide for thromboprophylaxis.

METHODS

Discharge lists were reviewed to select the first consecutive 20 patients, aged ≥ 40 years and admitted ≥ 4 days to the Internal Medicine Departments of 79 Spanish hospitals. Exclusion criteria were: admission for diagnostic procedures, VTE or surgical illness, or care during hospitalization provided by the local investigator.

RESULTS

From September 2011 to July 2012, 2845 discharge reports were evaluated and 1623 were considered eligible for the study. Overall 930 (57.3%) patients of this group were at risk of VTE according to the ACCP guidelines, 759 (81.6%) received VTE prophylaxis (mechanical or pharmacological) and 159 (17.1%) had at least one risk factor that might contraindicate anticoagulant use. The proportion of patients at VTE risk according to the ACCP and National PRETEMED guidelines with no risk factors of bleeding that did not receive prophylaxis was 16.3% and 17.2%, respectively. During hospitalization, there were 14 (0.9%) episodes of symptomatic VTE, 12 (86%) of which occurred in patients receiving prophylaxis. VTE rate was 1.3% among patients with VTE risk that received prophylaxis and 3.5% in patients that also had one risk factor that might contraindicate anticoagulant use.

CONCLUSIONS

In a setting characterized by high thromboprophylaxis compliance most of the episodes occurred in patients receiving pharmacological prophylaxis. Patients with combined VTE and bleeding risk factors showed the highest rate of both symptomatic VTE and prophylaxis failure.

Improved venous thromboembolism prophylaxis by pharmacist-driven interventions in acutely ill medical patients in Belgium

BACKGROUND

Forty to 50 % of hospitalized patients with an acute medical illness have risk factors for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and it has been shown that VTE prophylaxis reduced the incidence of VTE events in these patients. However, a large multinational survey, the ENDORSE study, showed that only 37 % of medical patients with VTE risk factors actually received VTE prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the impact over time of pharmacist-driven interventions aiming at increasing the appropriate use of VTE prophylaxis in acutely ill medical hospitalized patients.

SETTING

A Belgian urban academic hospital.

METHOD

First, during 1 month, medical and nurse reports of all hospitalized medical patients were reviewed to evaluate the proportion of patients who were on prophylaxis according to clinical practice guidelines. Second, interventions were conducted and included unit-specific physician and nurse education, diffusion of educational tools summarizing VTE prophylaxis guidelines, and reminders. Third, the impact of the interventions on the proportion of patients receiving VTE prophylaxis according to clinical practice guidelines was evaluated after 3 months and 1 year.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Proportion of hospitalized medical patients receiving VTE prophylaxis according to clinical practice guidelines.

RESULTS

The baseline evaluation showed that 36 % (26/72) of the patients at risk of VTE received VTE prophylaxis according to clinical practice guidelines. Three months and one year after the interventions, 68 % (55/81), and 72 % (58/81) of the patients at risk of VTE received VTE prophylaxis according to clinical practice guidelines. Among patients not at risk of VTE, 15 % (21/141), 8 % (24/290), and 8 % (27/330) respectively at baseline evaluation, 3 months and 1 year after the interventions, received VTE prophylaxis.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacist-driven interventions improved the proportion of acutely ill medical patients receiving VTE prophylaxis according to clinical practice guidelines and the benefit of the interventions was maintained after 1 year.

Attitude of Iranian physicians and nurses toward a clinical decision support system for pulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis

This research project sought to design and implement a computerized clinical decision support system (CDSS) that was able to identify patients who were at risk of pulmonary embolism (PE) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT), as well as produce reminders for prophylactic action for these diseases. The main purpose of the CDSS was to attempt to reduce the morbidity and mortality caused by embolism and thrombosis in patients admitted to hospitals. After implementation of this system in one of the large educational hospitals of Iran, a standard questionnaire was used, and interviews were conducted with physicians and nurses to evaluate the performance of the designed system for reducing the incidence of pulmonary embolism and thrombosis. From physicians and nurses' point of view, a system which assists the medical staff in making better decisions regarding patient care, and also reminds pulmonary embolism and thrombosis preventive procedures with timely warnings, can influence patient care quality improvement and lead to the improved performance of the medical staff in preventing the incidence of pulmonary embolism and thrombosis.

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.

Prevalence of thrombocytosis in critically ill patients and its association with symptomatic acute pulmonary embolism. A multicentre registry study

It is uncertain whether thrombocytosis without underlying myeloproliferative diseases is associated with an increased risk of acute pulmonary embolism (PE). We investigated the relationship between thrombocytosis and risk of symptomatic acute PE, and whether Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) was reliable in predicting mortality of acute PE. This multicentre registry study involved a total of 609,367 critically ill patients admitted to 160 intensive care units (ICUs) in Australia or New Zealand between 2006 and 2011. Forward stepwise logistic regression was used to assess the relationship between risk of acute PE and platelet counts on intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Acute PE (n=3387) accounted for 0.9% of all emergency ICU admissions. Over 20% of all PE required mechanical ventilation, 4.2% had cardiac arrest, and the mortality was high (14.8%). Thrombocytosis, defined by a platelet count >500x10⁹ per litre, occurred in 2.1% of the patients and was more common in patients with acute PE than other diagnoses (3.4 vs. 2.0%). The platelet counts explained about 4.5% of the variability and had a linear relationship with the risk of acute PE (odds ratio 1.19 per 100x10⁹ per litre increment in platelet count, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.34), after adjusting for other covariates. The PESI had a reasonable discriminative ability (area under receiver-operating-characteristic curve = 0.78) and calibration to predict mortality across a wide range of severity of acute PE. In summary, thrombocytosis was associated with an increased risk of symptomatic acute PE. PESI was useful in predicting mortality across a wide range of severity of acute PE.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized elderly patients: Time to consider a 'MUST' strategy

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the commonest cause of preventable death in hospitalized patients. Elderly patients have higher risk of VTE because of the high prevalence of predisposing co-morbidities and acute illnesses. Clinical diagnosis of VTE in the elderly patient is particularly difficult and, as such, adequate VTE prophylaxis is of pivotal importance in reducing the mortality and morbidities of VTE. Omission of VTE prophylaxis is, however, very common despite continuous education. A simple way to overcome this problem is to implement universal VTE prophylaxis for all hospitalized elderly patients instead of selective prophylaxis for some patients only according to individual's risk of VTE. Although pharmacological VTE prophylaxis is effective for most patients, a high prevalence of renal impairment and drug interactions in the hospitalized elderly patients suggests that a multimodality approach may be more appropriate. Mechanical VTE prophylaxis, including calf and thigh compression devices and/or an inferior vena cava filter, are often underutilized in hospitalized elderly patients who are at high-risk of bleeding and VTE. Because pneumatic compression devices and thigh length stockings are virtually risk free, mechanical VTE prophylaxis may allow early or immediate implementation of VTE prophylaxis for all hospitalized elderly patients, regardless of their bleeding and VTE risk. Although the cost-effectiveness of this Multimodality Universal STat (‘MUST’) VTE prophylaxis approach for hospitalized elderly patients remains uncertain, this strategy appears to offer some advantages over the traditional ‘selective and single-modal’ VTE prophylaxis approach, which often becomes ‘hit or miss’ or not implemented promptly in many hospitalized elderly patients. A large clustered randomized controlled trial is, however, needed to assess whether early, multimodality, universal VTE prophylaxis can improve important clinical outcomes of hospitalized elderly patients.

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.

The effects of on-screen, point of care computer reminders on processes and outcomes of care

BACKGROUND

The opportunity to improve care by delivering decision support to clinicians at the point of care represents one of the main incentives for implementing sophisticated clinical information systems. Previous reviews of computer reminder and decision support systems have reported mixed effects, possibly because they did not distinguish point of care computer reminders from e-mail alerts, computer-generated paper reminders, and other modes of delivering 'computer reminders'.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects on processes and outcomes of care attributable to on-screen computer reminders delivered to clinicians at the point of care.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane EPOC Group Trials register, MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL and CENTRAL to July 2008, and scanned bibliographies from key articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies of a reminder delivered via a computer system routinely used by clinicians, with a randomised or quasi-randomised design and reporting at least one outcome involving a clinical endpoint or adherence to a recommended process of care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we calculated the median improvement in adherence to target processes of care and also identified the outcome with the largest such improvement. We then calculated the median absolute improvement in process adherence across all studies using both the median outcome from each study and the best outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies (reporting a total of thirty-two comparisons) were included. Computer reminders achieved a median improvement in process adherence of 4.2% (interquartile range (IQR): 0.8% to 18.8%) across all reported process outcomes, 3.3% (IQR: 0.5% to 10.6%) for medication ordering, 3.8% (IQR: 0.5% to 6.6%) for vaccinations, and 3.8% (IQR: 0.4% to 16.3%) for test ordering. In a sensitivity analysis using the best outcome from each study, the median improvement was 5.6% (IQR: 2.0% to 19.2%) across all process measures and 6.2% (IQR: 3.0% to 28.0%) across measures of medication ordering. In the eight comparisons that reported dichotomous clinical endpoints, intervention patients experienced a median absolute improvement of 2.5% (IQR: 1.3% to 4.2%). Blood pressure was the most commonly reported clinical endpoint, with intervention patients experiencing a median reduction in their systolic blood pressure of 1.0 mmHg (IQR: 2.3 mmHg reduction to 2.0 mmHg increase).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Point of care computer reminders generally achieve small to modest improvements in provider behaviour. A minority of interventions showed larger effects, but no specific reminder or contextual features were significantly associated with effect magnitude. Further research must identify design features and contextual factors consistently associated with larger improvements in provider behaviour if computer reminders are to succeed on more than a trial and error basis.