Key result
Pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was significantly underused, with only 30.3% of high-risk inpatients receiving appropriate prophylaxis.
Why the study?
Venous thromboembolism is a prevalent and morbid inpatient complication, motivating the evaluation of prophylaxis practices and determinants of inappropriate use in general internal medicine wards to guide quality improvement.
Cross-Sectional (n=295)
No
There is a significant underuse of VTE prophylaxis in high-risk general internal medicine inpatients, highlighting a major quality gap in clinical practice.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Highlights implementation gaps in VTE prevention; leaves open effective quality improvement strategies.
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a prevalent complication of inpatient care, causing high burden of morbidity and mortality. Prophylaxis reduces the events; thus, these practices are promoted. We aimed to assess the VTE prophylaxis practices in the general internal medicine wards of a tertiary-care university hospital and utilize these data to propose quality improvement projects. OBJECTIVE: Assess the pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis utilization by using the Padua Prediction Score and demonstrate the main determinants of inappropriate prophylaxis use. METHODS: Electronic medical records were used to collect data cross-sectionally from 1 January 2019 to 30 June 2019. Padua Prediction Score was used to assess the appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis. Underlying health conditions, hospitalization causes, anti-platelets and use of glucocorticoids were also assessed as confounding factors. RESULTS: A total of 295 patients were included. Higher proportion of patients who received VTE prophylaxis were obese and had higher rates of diabetes and coronary artery disease. Prophylaxis was more commonly utilized among patients who were elderly, obese, having an acute infection and/or rheumatologic disorder and prolonged bed rest (P ≤ 0.001, P = 0.01, P = 0.22 and P ≤ 0.001, respectively). Thirty-five patients (11.8%) received VTE prophylaxis, despite 89 patients (30.2%) were high-risk patients. In the high-risk group (n = 89), 27 patients (30.3%) received appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis, while 8 patients (3.9%) received VTE prophylaxis in the low-risk group (total n = 206). A considerable percentage of the high-risk population (69.6%) did not receive VTE prophylaxis. DISCUSSION: Underuse constitutes a major challenge in our hospital but differing from other institutions, overuse is not a significant issue. Further studies are needed whether VTE prophylaxis improvement implementations uniformly increase appropriate VTE use.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Güven et al. (2021) conducted a cross-sectional in Venous thromboembolism risk (n=295). Pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis was evaluated on Appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis in high-risk patients. Pharmacological VTE prophylaxis was significantly underused, with only 30.3% of high-risk inpatients receiving appropriate prophylaxis.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: