Key result
Guideline implementation is linked to an absolute ~20-point drop in missed heparin thromboprophylaxis days.
Why the study?
Patient safety can be improved by increasing heparin thromboprophylaxis in medical-surgical ICU patients through evidence-based guideline implementation.
Does a multiple-method guideline implementation strategy increase heparin thromboprophylaxis and reduce errors of omission in medical-surgical intensive care unit patients?
Observational
No
Does a multiple-method guideline implementation strategy increase heparin thromboprophylaxis and reduce errors of omission in medical-surgical intensive care unit patients?
Absolute Event Rate: 0% vs 20%
p-value: p=<.001
A multifaceted guideline implementation strategy significantly increased heparin thromboprophylaxis and reduced errors of omission in critically ill ICU patients.
Supports multifaceted ICU implementation to cut omission errors; hypothesis-generating for VTE outcomes in RCTs.
Objective To improve patient safety by increasing heparin thromboprophylaxis for medical-surgical intensive care unit patients using a multiple-method approach to evidence-based guideline development and implementation. Design Prospective longitudinal observational study. Setting Medical-surgical intensive care unit. Participants Multidisciplinary clinicians caring for critically ill patients in a 15-bed medical-surgical closed intensive care unit. Interventions Phase 1 was a 3-month baseline period during which we documented anticoagulation and mechanical thromboprophylaxis. Phase 2 was a 1-yr period in which we implemented a thromboprophylaxis guideline using a) interactive multidisciplinary educational in-services; b) verbal reminders to the intensive care unit team; c) computerized daily nurse recording of thromboprophylaxis; d) weekly graphic feedback to individual intensivists on guideline adherence; and e) publicly displayed graphic feedback on group performance. Phase 3 was a 3-month follow-up period 10 months later, during which we documented thromboprophylaxis. Computerized daily nurse recording of thromboprophylaxis continued in this period. Measurements and main results Intensive care unit and hospital mortality rates were similar across phases, although patients in phase 2 had higher Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores than patients in phases 1 and 3. The proportion (median % [interquartile range]) of intensive care unit patient-days of heparin thromboprophylaxis in phases 1, 2, and 3 was 60.0 (0, 100), 90.9 (50, 100), and 100.0 (60, 100), respectively (p=.01). The proportion (median % [interquartile range]) of days during which heparin thromboprophylaxis was omitted in error in phases 1, 2, and 3 was 20 (0, 53.8), 0 (0, 6.3), and 0 (0, 0), respectively (p<.001). Conclusions After development and implementation of an evidence-based thromboprophylaxis guideline, we found significantly more patients receiving heparin thromboprophylaxis. Guideline adherence was maintained 1 yr later. Further research is needed on which are the most effective strategies to implement patient safety initiatives in the intensive care unit.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McMullin et al. (2006) conducted an observational in Critically ill patients at risk for venous thromboembolism. Multiple-method thromboprophylaxis guideline implementation vs. Baseline period without guideline implementation was evaluated on Proportion of days during which heparin thromboprophylaxis was omitted in error (p=<.001). Implementation of an evidence-based thromboprophylaxis guideline reduced the median proportion of days heparin was omitted in error from 20% at baseline to 0% (P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: