Key result
Estimation of VTE risk based on clinical impression was congruent with calculated risk in only 54.9% of patients (40.8% low risk vs 72.1% high risk; P<.001), leading to frequent overtreatment.
Why the study?
Does clinical impression of VTE risk match calculated risk using the Padua Prediction Score in adult medical inpatients?
Population
437 consecutive adult patients admitted to general medical wards under medicine service between January 1…
Comparison
Clinical impression/documented risk for VTE… vs Calculated risk using the Padua Prediction Score
Design
Cohort
Authors
Loading...
Inappropriate VTE prophylaxis documentation was frequent in medical inpatients; hypothesis-generating for quality improvement efforts before practice change.
Observational (n=437)
Does clinical impression of VTE risk match calculated risk using the Padua Prediction Score in adult medical inpatients?
Absolute Event Rate: 40.8% vs 72.1%
p-value: p=<.001
Clinical estimation of VTE risk is often incongruent with calculated risk models, leading to significant overtreatment and unnecessary costs, supporting the integration of VTE risk calculators in electronic health records.
Chaudhary et al. (2017) conducted an observational in Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (n=437). Perceived VTE risk (clinical impression) vs. Calculated VTE risk (Padua Prediction Score) was evaluated on Appropriateness of risk stratification using the Padua Prediction Score (p=<.001). Estimation of VTE risk based on clinical impression was congruent with calculated risk in only 54.9% of patients (40.8% low risk vs 72.1% high risk; P<.001), leading to frequent overtreatment.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: