Key result
Chart-attached VTE risk assessment tools improve adherence, but 24-hour reassessment may be unnecessary.
Observational
No
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PURPOSE: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines were originally published by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) in April 2007. Controversy eclipsed their release. Consequently, the VTE prophylaxis publication was reviewed and republished in January 2010. The NICE guidelines recommend that all patients are assessed for risk before pharmacological prophylaxis is offered and reassessed at 24 hours to check adverse reactions; and that prophylaxis is appropriate. This paper aims to look at their implementation. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: A prospective audit and re-audit in one orthopaedic department was completed to see how well the new guidelines were adhered to, find out first-hand what problems there were, and how they might be remedied. FINDINGS: Audit and re-audit highlighted that attaching an assessment tool to drug charts is plausible. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The study was limited to one centre and used a relatively weak research design. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: As a process, the clinical impact of risk assessment for VTE is questionable as many patients will be high risk. Removing reassessment at 24 hours from the NICE guidance is recommended. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: The authors put the NICE guideline into clinical practice, demonstrating how effectively it can work with their method, but also highlighting its flaws.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Thavarajah et al. (2012) conducted an observational in Venous thromboembolism. Attaching a VTE risk assessment tool to drug charts was evaluated on Adherence to NICE VTE risk assessment guidelines. Attaching a VTE risk assessment tool to drug charts was plausible in an orthopaedic audit, though the necessity of the 24-hour reassessment recommended by NICE guidelines was questioned.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: