Rate Of Appropriate Prophylaxis Research Articles

Impact of a trainee-led initiative to address PCP prophylaxis barriers.

319 Background: In a prior trainee-led QI initiative, we surveyed clinicians about Pneumocystis pneumonia (PCP) and assessed rates of appropriate prophylaxis. Through retrospective chart review, we found that 47% of eligible patients (n=140/297) received PCP prophylaxis between 5/2022 and 5/2023. Clinician-reported barriers included knowledge gaps, systems-related gaps, and unclear corticosteroid durations. In the current initiative, we built an order set to facilitate PCP prophylaxis prescription and created an automated approach to assess prophylaxis rates. We then re-evaluated perceived barriers to prescribing PCP prophylaxis. Methods: A multidisciplinary team of oncology fellows and QI staff was established at Johns Hopkins. A new PCP prophylaxis order set was implemented on 4/15/2023. An automated data query was developed to identify patients with solid malignancies who were eligible for PCP prophylaxis per ASCO/IDSA guidelines (≥20mg prednisone equivalents daily for ≥1 month). Patient data was collected between 4/15/2022 and 4/15/2024. Surveys were conducted in 5/2023 and 5/2024 to assess prescriber knowledge of, and attitudes toward, PCP prophylaxis. The survey was open to prescribers across oncology specialties. Results: 1,404 patients were eligible for PCP prophylaxis over the 2-year study period, with 19% (n=264) receiving prophylaxis. In the year before the order set, 21% (n=138) of eligible patients were prescribed prophylaxis. In the year after the order set, 17% (n=126) of eligible patients were prescribed prophylaxis. A survey conducted post order set implementation included 52 responses from 42% (n= 22) attending physicians, 35% (n=18) advanced practice providers, and 23% (n=12) residents/fellows. While 92% (n=48) of survey participants had prescribed PCP prophylaxis, 31% (n=16) knew the dose/duration of corticosteroids at which society guidelines recommend prophylaxis. Unclear corticosteroid duration, guideline knowledge, and concern about side-effects were the most commonly reported barriers to prescribing prophylaxis. Conclusions: Compared to the prior chart review approach, the automated query identified more than twice as many patients at risk for PCP. Strikingly, <25% of eligible patients were prescribed PCP prophylaxis. Prescription rates did not improve following implementation of the order set. However, the post order set survey found increased rates of guideline knowledge and identified unclear corticosteroid durations as the primary barrier to prophylaxis. Building on these findings, an additional PDSA cycle is ongoing including development of notification system alerting providers when PCP prophylaxis is recommended for their patients. Barriers to PCP prophylaxis. Barrier Number of Respondents (%) Pre Order Set Number of Respondents (%) Post Order Set Unclear Corticosteroid Duration 8 (11%) 10 (19%) Guideline Knowledge 11 (16%) 7 (13%) Lack of EMR Notification 6 (9%) 2 (4%)

Identification of prophylaxis and treatment for hospitalized patients associated with venous thromboembolism.

Identification of prophylaxis and treatment for hospitalized patients associated with venous thromboembolism.

The Collateral Benefit of COVID Pandemic: Improved Pharmacological Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Practices in Non-COVID Patients.

COVID-19 creates a hypercoagulable state with a wide spectrum of clinical manifestations. Of those, venous thromboembolism (VTE) is prevalent, and numerous studies have highlighted the importance of VTE prophylaxis. Pre-pandemic VTE prophylaxis practices have already been poor, despite guidelines. We hypothesized that the gap between guidelines and practices might have been closed due to increased awareness. Non-COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the internal medicine ward of a university hospital between January 1st, 2021, and June 30th, 2021, were assessed. VTE risk and thromboprophylaxis requirements were assessed using the Padua Prediction Score (PPS). The results were compared with the findings of the study conducted in the same setting before the pandemic. A total of 267 patients were included, and 81 patients (30.3%) received prophylaxis. A total of 128 patients' (47.9%) PPS was ≥ 4, and 69 patients (53.9%) received prophylaxis; 12 low-risk patients (8.6%) received prophylaxis although it was not indicated. Compared to the pre-pandemic figures, both appropriate prophylaxis use and overuse rates have risen. While the increment rate of appropriate prophylaxis was statistically significant, the increment rate of overuse did not reach statistical significance. Patients hospitalized for infectious diseases and respiratory failure were more likely to receive appropriate prophylaxis. We have demonstrated a significant increase in appropriate pharmacologic prophylaxis rates among high-risk patients. Besides all the collateral damage the pandemic has created, it might also have brought collateral benefits with regards to VTE prophylaxis.

Survey of U.S. Healthcare Providers to Assess Attitudes and Practices Regarding Thromboprophylaxis of Hospitalized Adult Patients

Background: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of mortality among hospitalized patients, but appropriate thromboprophylaxis remains underutilized. A significant proportion of VTE associated with hospitalization occurs after discharge. We conducted a national survey of healthcare providers to explore attitudes, practices, and barriers related to thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized patients, including practices for post discharge VTE prevention. Methods: We developed a survey exploring current attitudes and practices around VTE prophylaxis in adult hospitalized patients. Healthcare providers targeted for the survey were physicians, nurses, physician assistants, and pharmacists. The survey was administered to a targeted convenience sample. Participants were recruited through social media, professional healthcare organizations, and internal medicine program directors across the US. The overarching survey areas included (1) use of appropriate prophylaxis, including perceived rates of appropriate prophylaxis at respective institutions, (2) perceived barriers to appropriate prophylaxis, (3) practices to educate about and prevent post discharge VTE events, and (4) views on use of risk assessment models (RAMs) and other strategies to improve rates of VTE prophylaxis. Since it is generally understood by the healthcare provider respondents of this survey that administration of VTE prophylaxis depends on a patient's risk, survey questions did not specify a definition for appropriate prophylaxis. We summarized data as proportions with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Of 607 U.S.-based respondents, 69.9% were 40 years or younger, 55.7% were female, 68.2% were white, and 63.1% reported working in an academic hospital. Physicians comprised 70.7% of respondents, of whom 46.6% identified as trainees; among non-trainees, 49.0% had been in practice for more than 10 years. Hospital medicine was the most frequent specialty (52.1%) followed by hematology (20.8%). Nearly all respondents agreed that VTE prophylaxis is important for patient care (98.8%, 95% CI: 97.6-99.5) and that current measures are safe (92.6%, 95% CI: 90.2-94.5) and effective (93.8%, 95% CI: 91.6-95.6). Yet only 52.0% (95% CI: 47.9-56.0) of respondents perceived that hospitalized patients at their institution were on appropriate VTE prophylaxis almost all of the time. The most commonly cited reasons for patients not being on appropriate VTE prophylaxis included patient refusal (21.8%), risk of bleeding outweighs benefit (21.6%), and unclear indications (16.0%) and contraindications (17.6%) for prophylaxis. Less than half of respondents reported using institutional protocols (48.3%) or a standardized RAM (35.4%) to select patients for VTE prophylaxis and most respondents (72.3%) relied on clinical judgement to assess bleeding risk when deciding on prophylaxis (Figure 1). Respondent views on strategies that could improve VTE prophylaxis rates in hospitalized patients included integration of RAMs into electronic health records (66.6%), automatic electronic reminders (55.0%), and order sets in electronic systems (46.1%) (Figure 2). Less than 20% of respondents reported routinely educating patients about risks (15.1%, 95% CI: 12.3-18.2) and symptoms (17.9%, 95% CI: 14.9-21.2) of post-discharge VTE events, and 8.6% (95% CI: 0.06-11.1) routinely prescribe VTE prophylaxis on discharge. Respondent views on strategies that could help reduce post-discharge VTE events included using standardized risk assessments at discharge (60.0%), providing educational materials at discharge (51.2%), and including post-discharge VTE prophylaxis in discharge checklists (45.5%) (Figure 2). Conclusion: To our knowledge, this is the largest U.S. national survey to date that focuses on VTE prevention practices in hospitalized patients. VTE prophylaxis was almost universally accepted as important, safe, and effective for patients at risk for VTE. Less than half of the respondents reported using standardized protocols or RAMs to guide appropriate thromboprophylaxis administration. Discharge education regarding risks of VTE is infrequent. This national multidisciplinary survey study highlights gaps in current practices and strategies for VTE prevention in hospitalized patients. Figure 1View largeDownload PPTFigure 1View largeDownload PPT Close modal

250. An Assessment of the Penicillin Allergy Label in Patients Undergoing Orthopedic Procedures at a VA Medical Center

BackgroundApproximately 10% of the population is labeled as penicillin (PCN) allergic, while only 1% of these individuals have a true IgE mediated allergy. This label influences the prescription of the most appropriate antibiotic and ultimately leads to antimicrobial resistance, hospital readmission, increased length of hospital stays, use of critical care beds, and greater healthcare costs. Post-surgical complications in patients undergoing total knee arthroplasty (TKA) or total hip arthroplasty (THA) are also increased when patients receive an alternative antibiotic due to PCN allergy. MethodsA retrospective chart review identified patients who underwent a TKA or THA during the 2018-2020 calendar years at the Washington DC VA Medical Center. Multiple operations at different times on the same patient were regarded as separate events. The primary outcome was patients who were evaluable for penicillin allergy de-labeling and the secondary outcome was perioperative antibiotic choice.ResultsPatients in both groups were predominantly male, Black, and over the age of 60. Of a total of 317 procedures performed, we identified 28 procedures in which patients carried a PCN allergy label (PAL) and received a β-lactam alternative antibiotic for surgical prophylaxis. No patients in the PAL group received cefazolin for prophylaxis, compared to 87% of the non-PAL group who were appropriately given cefazolin. In the group carrying the PAL, 62% of patients received vancomycin and 29% of patients received clindamycin for pre-operative prophylaxis. Only one of these patients had a formal allergy consult note, but the PCN allergy was not addressed during that visit. Fewer patients (4%) required ICU admission during their hospitalization in the non-PAL group versus 10% of patients in the PAL group. Table 1. Patient Demographics and Procedure Detail ConclusionThe use of alternative antibiotics in pre-procedural prophylaxis can contribute to adverse events associated with high-risk broader spectrum antimicrobials as well as increased costs associated with antimicrobials such as vancomycin. Our facility began implementation of a penicillin de-labeling program in 2018 via skin testing and direct oral challenge in collaboration with colleagues from Allergy and Immunology. Removal of PAL in this population can increase rates of appropriate prophylaxis. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Venous thromboembolism, can we do better? Profile of venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in a University Hospital in the State of São Paulo.

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a silent and potentially lethal disease that affects a considerable proportion of hospitalized patients. It has high morbidity and mortality and is responsible for a heavy financial burden on healthcare systems. However, VTE can be prevented using prophylaxis measures that have been established in the literature. Nonetheless, in the real world, mean rates of appropriately administered VTE prophylaxis are lower than 50%. Objectives To define the epidemiological profile of patients with VTE in a University Hospital and the rate of appropriately administered VTE prophylaxis at that service and to identify measures to improve the rate. Methods A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted with data collected from the medical records of patients who met the inclusion criteria. The rates of correct VTE prophylaxis prescribed to clinical and surgical patients were compared, assessed according to guidelines published by the Brazilian Society of Angiology and Vascular Surgery (SBACV), based on VTE risk classification. Results The overall rate of correctly-prescribed VTE prophylaxis was 42.1%, while 57.9% of patients were not managed correctly in this respect. Clinical patients had a 52.9% rate of appropriate prophylaxis, while the equivalent rate for surgical patients was 37.5%. Conclusions Rates of correctly-prescribed VTE prophylaxis are still lower than they should be. Ongoing education, measures to encourage bedside risk stratification, and improvements to the electronic prescription system could increase appropriate VTE prophylaxis rates.

Developing an Economic Case of Clinical Pharmacists' Interventions on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Through Service Evaluation.

Objective:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) has become a huge health problem as well as a financial burden for the National Health Service. The objective of this study was to characterize current practice of VTE prophylaxis (VTEP) and evaluate the economic impact of clinical pharmacists’ interventions (CPIs) on VTEP.Methods:A prospective service evaluation was conducted in a medical and surgical ward at a tertiary teaching hospital in London from 23 May to 08 June 2016. Appropriateness of risk assessment (RA) and VTEP and CPIs were categorized and assessed. Based on the results of the service evaluation, a pharmacoeconomic analysis was undertaken to estimate the cost savings by CPIs for inappropriate pharmacological VTEP.Findings:A total of 203 cases were analyzed. The rates of appropriateness for RA on admission, RA at 24 h and pharmacological VTEP were 58.6%, 39.7%, and 75.4%, respectively. In the medical ward, there was a significant difference of appropriate RAs between on admission and at 24 h (70.3% vs. 23.8%, respectively). Whereas, the rate of appropriate pharmacological VTEP accounted for 75.4% and the rate of appropriate prophylaxis was significantly higher in the medical ward than surgical ward (80.5% vs. 68.2%, P = 0.045). Of 50 cases of inappropriate pharmacological prophylaxis, 39 cases (78.0%) were corrected by clinical pharmacists. These CPIs resulted in £1,286.23 cost savings during the study and it was estimated to be £517,522/annum.Conclusion:CPIs had significant positive clinical and economic impacts on VTEP. There is more scope for the improvement of RA at 24 h through CPIs.

Moving Closer to Zero: Effect of "Just in Time" Dosing of Prophylactic Antibiotics on Surgical Site Infections.

A local quality initiative to improve compliance with surgical antibiotic prophylaxis measures resulted in a high percentage of patients receiving antibiotics within minutes of surgical incision. Studies examining the association between timing of prophylaxis and the risk for surgical site infection (SSI) have produced heterogeneous results. To examine risk factors for SSI, including "just in time" dosing of antibiotic prophylaxis (dose administered within 5 minutes of incision). This was a retrospective matched case-control study. Case patients developed SSI in the 30 days following a clean or clean-contaminated surgical procedure. Control patients did not develop SSI following similar procedures and were matched to ensure comparable baseline risk. We assessed the rate of guideline-compliant antibiotic prophylaxis and calculated odds ratios (ORs) to determine the association of patient covariates with the risk for SSI. Forty case patients and 104 controls were included in the study. The rate of appropriate prophylaxis was high in both groups (98% and 94% for case and control groups, respectively). Approximately 15% of case and control patients received antibiotic prophylaxis within 5 minutes of incision, thus, "just in time" dosing did not appear to increase the risk for SSI (OR, 0.814; 95% CI, 0.274-2.415). There was a nonsignificant association between receipt of vancomycin and SSI (OR, 2.844; 95% CI, 0.926-8.737). "Just in time" dosing of prophylactic antibiotics was not associated with increased risk for SSI. Further study is needed to clarify the impact of antibiotic choice on the risk for subsequent SSI.

PROF-ETEV study: prophylaxis of venous thromboembolic disease in critical care units in Spain.

Venous thromboembolic disease (VTE) in critically ill patients has a high incidence despite prophylactic measures. This fact could be related to an inappropriate use of these measures due to the absence of specific VTE risk scores. To assess the current situation in Spain, we have performed a cross-sectional study, analyzing if the prophylactic measures were appropriate to the patients' VTE risk. Through an electronic questionnaire, we carried out a single day point prevalence study on the VTE prophylactic measures used in several critical care units in Spain. We performed a risk stratification for VTE in three groups: low, moderate-high, and very high risk. The American College of Chest Physicians guidelines were used to determine if the patients were receiving the recommended prophylaxis. A total of 777 patients were included; 62% medical, 30% surgical, and 7% major trauma patients. The median number of the risk factors for VTE was four. According to the proposed VTE risk score, only 2% of the patients were at low risk, whereas 83% were at very high risk. Sixty-three percent of patients received pharmacological prophylaxis, 12% mechanical prophylaxis, 6% combined prophylaxis, and 19% did not receive any prophylactic measure. According to criteria suggested by the guidelines, 23% of medical, 71% of surgical, and 70% of major trauma patients received an inappropriate prophylaxis. Most critically ill patients are at high or very high risk of VTE, but there is a low rate of appropriate prophylaxis. The efforts to improve the identification of patients at risk, and the implementation of appropriate prevention protocols should be enhanced.

Improving Rates of Appropriate Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in a Community Hospital.

Abstract 3159Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) is responsible for significant hospital related morbidity and mortality, with 5–10% of hospital related mortality directly attributable to VTE. Despite the evidence supporting VTE prophylaxis, rates of prophylaxis vary between institutions and initiatives to improve prophylaxis are required. A baseline one-day audit was held at our institution to determine the rate of compliance with internal VTE prophylaxis clinical practice guidelines. The audit revealed an 85% compliance rate in eligible patients.The emergency department stood our as having a 76% rate of appropriate VTE prophylaxis during the audit. Targeting prophylaxis rates in the emergency department had the potential to increase the overall rates for the hospital if appropriate VTE prophylaxis could be initiated prior to transfer to in-patient care units, it would likely be continued.A comprehensive plan was put in place to improve VTE prophylaxis rates, which included targeted education, feedback to prescribers and the novel use of pharmacy student resources to increase the rates of VTE prophylaxis at a community hospital. Patients who were not receiving any anticoagulant medication were identified using the hospital information system. Pharmacy students were trained to assess patients for indications for VTE prophylaxis and they assessed all patients not receiving an anticoagulant admitted to the emergency department from Monday to Friday.When students identified a patient who was not receiving prophylaxis who met the criteria for prophylaxis, they reviewed their findings with the emergency department clinical pharmacist to ensure their assessment was accurate given their status as students. If the pharmacist agreed, the students were authorized to make a recommendation to the physician to start VTE prophylaxis. Recommendations included both pharmacological and mechanical prophylaxis options, depending on patient bleeding risk.During the first 60 days of the program, 247 patients were assessed by the students for prophylaxis, taking approximately 20 minutes each or 2.5 hours of student time per day. The pharmacy students made 64 recommendations for prophylaxis and 66% of the recommendations were accepted by the emergency room physicians with another 5% resulting in patients receiving a different mode of prophylaxis than recommended by the student (usually receiving pharmacological prophylaxis due to a change in bleeding risk).There were 794 patients admitted in the emergency department during the initial assessment of the program. Of the 794, 247 patients were assessed by the pharmacy students, who identified patients where prophylaxis was indicated for a rate of a “miss” for VTE prophylaxis in a patient where it was indicated of 8.06% prior to assessment by the student and 2.77% after assessment and recommendations, a 5.3% absolute increase in the rate of appropriate prophylaxis. While the number of patients admitted in the emergency department during the evaluation phase did not decrease, there was a decrease of the number of patients assessed per day by the students from 11 during the first ten days to 7 during the last ten days of the evaluation period. This 36% decrease in the number of patients identified as not receiving prophylaxis was likely multifactorial, and potentially attributed to targeted education, a physician champion who encouraged increased use of the admission pre-printed orders and an increased awareness of VTE prophylaxis due to pharmacy student recommendations.A post-implementation one-day audit was held to determine rates of appropriate VTE prophylaxis in the institution after the pharmacy student program and targeted education were implemented. The rate of appropriate VTE prophylaxis had risen in just 5 months to 97% of hospitalized patients who were eligible to receive prophylaxis were receiving prophylaxis, an 11% increase in the absolute rate of appropriate VTE prophylaxis according to the hospital clinical practice guideline criteria.The program continues beyond the initial pilot phase due to the excellent results. The use of pharmacy students, available year-round from a co-op program is an innovative, sustainable and cost-effective means to improve hospital rates of VTE prophylaxis to achieve goals of improved patient care. Disclosures:No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

Venous Thromboembolism Pharmacy Intervention Management Program With an Active, Multifaceted Approach Reduces Preventable Venous Thromboembolism and Increases Appropriate Prophylaxis

Two concepts relating to venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention have recently emerged-"appropriate" prophylaxis and "preventable" VTE. We evaluated whether a human alert, as part of a pharmacy intervention program, can increase appropriate prophylaxis and decrease preventable symptomatic VTE in hospitalized patients. This prospective study with retrospective data collection was conducted utilizing data from 1879 patients in 2006 as a control cohort. The intervention cohort data were from 1646 patients during 2007, after program implementation. The rate of appropriate prophylaxis increased from 23.8% in 2006 to 37.9% in 2007 (odds ratio 1.8; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.6-2.1; P < .0001). Preventable VTE incidence was reduced by 74% (95% CI = 44%-88%) from 18.6 to 4.9 per 1000 patient discharges in 2006 and 2007, respectively (P = .0006). In conclusion, a pharmacy-led multifaceted intervention can significantly increase the rates of appropriate prophylaxis and significantly reduce the incidence of preventable VTE in hospitalized patients.

Physician compliance with advanced electronic alerts for preventing venous thromboembolism among hospitalized medical patients.

Worldwide, more than half of the hospitalized medical patients at high risk do not receive venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. Although VTE among hospitalized patients at risk is reduced with electronic alerts (eAlerts), the majority of eAlerts are being ignored by the responsible physician. We investigated physician compliance with an advanced eAlert system in 1027 (age 59 +/- 17 years) hospitalized medical patients. A continuously flashing non-interruptive eAlert, visible to all healthcare professionals, was issued in the electronic patient chart 6 h after admission if the physician did not order prophylaxis. The rate of appropriate prophylaxis increased from 44% before to 76% after the implementation of the eAlert system. Although the patients whose physicians cared for > or = 20 patients during the study period had a more frequent physician response to the eAlert than patients whose physicians cared for fewer patients (69% vs. 40%, P < 0.001), they received appropriate prophylaxis less often (72% vs. 81%, P = 0.016). After adjustment for significant patient predictors of appropriate prophylaxis, including cancer, age, duration of hospital stay, and thrombocytopenia, patients whose physicians cared for > or = 20 patients during the study period were less likely to receive appropriate prophylaxis (odds ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.44-0.96; P = 0.032) than patients whose physicians cared for fewer patients. The introduction of an advanced eAlert system accompanied by continuing medical education for the prevention of VTE resulted in a substantial increase in the rate of appropriate prophylaxis among hospitalized medical patients. However, many eAlerts may cause decreased physician compliance owing to 'alert fatigue'.

Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study

Information about the variation in the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) and in prophylaxis practices around the world is scarce. The ENDORSE (Epidemiologic International Day for the Evaluation of Patients at Risk for Venous Thromboembolism in the Acute Hospital Care Setting) study is a multinational cross-sectional survey designed to assess the prevalence of VTE risk in the acute hospital care setting, and to determine the proportion of at-risk patients who receive effective prophylaxis. All hospital inpatients aged 40 years or over admitted to a medical ward, or those aged 18 years or over admitted to a surgical ward, in 358 hospitals across 32 countries were assessed for risk of VTE on the basis of hospital chart review. The 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidence-based consensus guidelines were used to assess VTE risk and to determine whether patients were receiving recommended prophylaxis. 68 183 patients were enrolled; 30 827 (45%) were categorised as surgical, and 37 356 (55%) as medical. On the basis of ACCP criteria, 35 329 (51.8%; 95% CI 51.4-52.2; between-country range 35.6-72.6) patients were judged to be at risk for VTE, including 19 842 (64.4%; 63.8-64.9; 44.1-80.2) surgical patients and 15 487 (41.5%; 41.0-42.0; 21.1-71.2) medical patients. Of the surgical patients at risk, 11 613 (58.5%; 57.8-59.2; 0.2-92.1) received ACCP-recommended VTE prophylaxis, compared with 6119 (39.5%; 38.7-40.3; 3.1-70.4) at-risk medical patients. A large proportion of hospitalised patients are at risk for VTE, but there is a low rate of appropriate prophylaxis. Our data reinforce the rationale for the use of hospital-wide strategies to assess patients' VTE risk and to implement measures that ensure that at-risk patients receive appropriate prophylaxis.

Rates of Guideline-Recommended Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Surgical Patients among US Hospitals: A Real-World Analysis.

Background: In spite of the wide availability of evidence-based guidelines for the thromboprophylaxis of venous thromboembolism (VTE), the burden of this syndrome in the US remains high. The improvement of VTE prophylaxis use is a major healthcare goal for the US Joint Commission. We therefore assessed the real-world rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in at-risk, hospitalized surgical patients, in accordance with the 7th American College of Chest Physicians guidelines, in hospitals across the US.Methods: Premier's Perspective™ inpatient data were used to assess the rate of VTE prophylaxis in discharges undergoing surgical procedures. Discharges aged ≥ 40 years, with a length of stay ≥ 6 days, and without contraindications for anticoagulation were included in the analysis. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was determined by comparing the daily use of anticoagulants and compression devices, dosage, and duration of prophylaxis with the 7th ACCP recommendations for each surgical procedure. A number of other factors, including geographic region, hospital type and size, and admission source were also investigated for potential influence on the levels of appropriate thromboprophylaxis.Results: A total of 116,915 surgical discharges from 1,574,320 discharges between January 2002 and December 2006 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this study. VTE prophylaxis rates varied among surgical groups, with an overall mean of only 14.4% of discharges receiving appropriate prophylaxis. Appropriate prophylaxis rates were 68.0% in orthopedic surgery (n = 2,404), 14.9% in vascular surgery (n = 54,170), 13.9% in general surgery (n = 39,072), 12.3% in laproscopic surgery (n = 14,905), 6.5% in gynecological surgery (n = 610), 5.2% in urological surgery (n = 2,640), and 4.0% in neurological surgery (n = 3,114).Conclusion: There is a significant gap in adherence to the ACCP guidelines in surgical patients, with on average approximately 85% of surgical patients not receiving evidence-based VTE thromboprophylaxis. Although the rates of appropriate prophylaxis for orthopedic surgery patients were considerably higher than in other surgical categories, one-third of these patients still did not receive appropriate prophylaxis. As performance measures evaluating hospital's VTE thromboprophylaxis use are rolled out across the US, it is important for individual hospitals to increase their awareness and use of the ACCP recommendations for VTE thromboprophylaxis.

Improved use of thromboprophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis following an educational intervention

We evaluated venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis rates in hospitalized medical patients in a teaching hospital, the State University of New York-Downstate Medical Center-University Hospital of Brooklyn, before and after implementation of a multifaceted VTE prophylaxis quality improvement intervention that combined regular education, dissemination of a decision support tool, and regular audit-and-feedback to resident physicians. The charts of 312 hospitalized medical patients were retrospectively reviewed to assess baseline rates of appropriate VTE prophylaxis. Rates of appropriate VTE prophylaxis were then determined 12 and 18 months after implementation of the quality improvement intervention. Data collected included risk factors for VTE, contraindications to anticoagulant prophylaxis, type of VTE prophylaxis prescribed, and whether the prophylaxis was appropriate. Most of the hospitalized medically ill patients had 3 or more risk factors for VTE. At baseline, the proportion of patients receiving any form of VTE prophylaxis, primarily unfractionated heparin, was 47%. The proportion of patients for whom a physician provided appropriate prophylaxis was 43%. After the intervention, the proportion of patients receiving prophylaxis significantly increased, to 86% at 12 months, and this level was maintained at 18 months. The rate of appropriate prophylaxis increased to 68% and 85% after 12 and 18 months, respectively. The proportion of hospitalized medical patients receiving appropriate VTE prophylaxis as recommended by evidence-based guidelines can be increased significantly by combining regular education, a decision support tool, and regular audit-and-feedback.