Key result
Advanced electronic alerts provided sustained efficacy over time, increasing thromboprophylaxis order rates among hospitalised medical patients from 43.4% to 73.6% in the post-implementation phase.
Why the study?
Do electronic alerts increase and sustain the rate of thromboprophylaxis orders in hospitalized medical patients?
Observational (n=5,317)
No
Do electronic alerts increase and sustain the rate of thromboprophylaxis orders in hospitalized medical patients?
Advanced electronic alerts provide sustained efficacy over time in maintaining high rates of VTE prophylaxis orders among hospitalized medical patients, even after withdrawal of continuing medical education.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Alerts linked to sustained prophylaxis ordering; supports durability but leaves open clinical outcome impact.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Beeler et al. (2011) conducted an observational in Hospitalised patients requiring venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (n=5,317). Advanced electronic alerts (eAlerts) vs. No eAlerts (surgical ward) was evaluated on Rate of thromboprophylaxis orders (p=0.011). Advanced electronic alerts provided sustained efficacy over time, increasing thromboprophylaxis order rates among hospitalised medical patients from 43.4% to 73.6% in the post-implementation phase.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: