Utilization of the Khorana score (KS) by hematology/oncology clinicians in the ambulatory setting.

Abstract

31 Background: Patients with cancer are at an increased risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). Though cancer-associated thrombosis is a major cause of mortality in patients, only second to disease progression, the optimal use of primary prophylaxis remains a clinical challenge. The KS, developed in 2008, is a validated tool to identify patients at low, intermediate, and high-risk for VTE. At the UConn Health Neag Comprehensive Cancer Center, we created a survey and administered it amongst our clinicians to assess KS knowledge and documentation practices. Methods: We conducted a 3-part quality improvement study that included a pre- and post-intervention retrospective chart review of eligible patients with cancer to examine rates of KS documentation. Eligibility included patients with cancer initiating a new chemotherapy. We excluded patients on anticoagulation, multiple myeloma, brain/central nervous system tumors, and patients in the Department of Corrections. The interventions included: 1) 9-question survey to assess clinician knowledge and utilization of KS; 2) KS education presented at a clinician meeting; 3) an electronic medical record (EMR) tool implemented to standardize KS documentation; and 4) reminder KS tip sheet created for clinicians. Descriptive statistics were used in data analysis. Results: Of 50 documented encounters, 40 met study criteria, with none having KS documentation. In a pre-tool implementation survey sent to 24 clinicians, of whom 20 had participated, 70% were physicians, 30% were advanced practice registered nurses (APRN), and 60% reported being in practice for 5 years or less. Most (90%) reported not using KS; only 10% reported being unfamiliar with the KS while 65% reported only sometimes talking to patients about VTE risk. Of the 10% of clinicians that did document KS, it was reported that they “document in the narrative of [the] note when appropriate.” The highest barriers to documentation were reported as “time constraints with extra documentation” and “not enough guidance.” Post-EMR tool implementation, a total of 58 of 99 (58.5%) encounters met study criteria and 1 KS was documented (1.7%). Conclusions: KS is underutilized in ambulatory clinical settings partly due to a lack of education and awareness despite availability of national guidelines which reflect the importance of primary VTE prophylaxis evaluation in all patients with cancer. This study demonstrates a continued deficiency in our clinical practice. We aim to further identify barriers and methods for improvement of KS documentation and VTE risk assessments. Additionally, a referral process is planned for all at-risk patients to enhance patient care, decrease hospital visits related to VTE, and attempt to reduce health-care costs related to VTE care.