894 An Audit of Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in A Busy ENT Department

Abstract

Abstract Aim Venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) are a common and preventable cause of in-hospital morbidity and mortality. Assessment of risk factors (RFs) on admission and appropriate prescription of mechanical (e.g., TEDS) and/or pharmacological prophylaxis (e.g., low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH)) is crucial. This is especially true in ENT where the variety of patient cohorts make a one-size-fits-all approach unsatisfactory. Guidelines from ENT UK reflect this. Method Electronic medical records were retrospectively reviewed for all emergency and pre-operative admissions (n = 173) to an adult ENT ward over 8 weeks. Adherence to the ENT UK guideline was assessed. Results 58% of patients had VTE RFs, 27% had bleeding RFs, 2% had mechanical thromboprophylaxis contraindications. VTE risk assessment was clearly carried out for 39% of admissions. 63 patients (36%) met the criteria for LMWH prescription. 22 (35%) received it. 5 received LMWH without meeting the criteria. 96 patients (55%) met the criteria for TEDS prescription. 5 (5%) received it. 1 received TEDS without meeting the criteria. Overall, 45% of admissions had both prescribed according to the guideline. Using a pro-forma (n = 148) significantly improved risk assessment rates (43% vs. 12%), but not correct prescription rates (45% vs 40%) compared to freehand clerking (n = 25). No patients developed a VTE or unexpected bleeding. Conclusions Risk assessment and prescription of pharmacological and, especially, mechanical thromboprophylaxis for those who met the relevant criteria has significant room for improvement. However, no apparent harm occurred because of this. Further work will focus on developing a departmental policy and educating staff on its application.