Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Research Articles

Venous thromboembolism testing practices after orthopaedic trauma: prophylaxis regimen does not influence testing patterns.

To determine venous thromboembolism (VTE) testing patterns in an orthopaedic trauma population and to evaluate for differences in VTE surveillance by prophylaxis regimen through a secondary analysis of the ADAPT trial. Prospective randomized trial. Level I trauma center. Three hundred twenty-nine adult (18 years and older) trauma patients presenting with an operative extremity fracture proximal to the metatarsals/carpals or any pelvic or acetabular fracture requiring VTE prophylaxis. VTE imaging studies recorded within 90 days post injury. Percentage of patients tested for VTE were compared between treatment groups using Fisher's exact test. Subsequently, multivariable regression was used to determine patient factors significantly associated with risk of receiving a VTE imaging study. Sixty-seven patients (20.4%) had VTE tests ordered during the study period. Twenty (29.9%) of these 67 patients with ordered VTE imaging tests had a positive finding. No difference in proportion of patients tested for VTE by prophylaxis regimen (18.8% on aspirin vs. 22.0% on LMWH, P = 0.50) was observed. Factors associated with increased likelihood of VTE testing included White race (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 2.61, 95% CI: 1.26-5.42), increased Injury Severity Score (aOR for every 1-point increase: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.05-1.15), and lower socioeconomic status based on the Area Deprivation Index (aOR for every 10-point increase: 1.14, 95% CI: 1.00-1.30). VTE surveillance did not significantly differ by prophylaxis regimen. Patient demographic factors including race, injury severity, and socioeconomic status were associated with differences in VTE surveillance. Level I, Therapeutic.

The potential use of artificial intelligence for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and management: clinician and healthcare informatician perspectives

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is the leading cause of preventable death in hospitalized patients. Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) can support guidelines recommending an individualized approach to risk assessment and prophylaxis. We conducted electronic surveys asking clinician and healthcare informaticians about their perspectives on AI/ML for VTE prevention and management. Of 101 respondents to the informatician survey, most were 40 years or older, male, clinicians and data scientists, and had performed research on AI/ML. Of the 607 US-based respondents to the clinician survey, most were 40 years or younger, female, physicians, and had never used AI to inform clinical practice. Most informaticians agreed that AI/ML can be used to manage VTE (56.0%). Over one-third were concerned that clinicians would not use the technology (38.9%), but the majority of clinicians believed that AI/ML probably or definitely can help with VTE prevention (70.1%). The most common concern in both groups was a perceived lack of transparency (informaticians 54.4%; clinicians 25.4%). These two surveys revealed that key stakeholders are interested in AI/ML for VTE prevention and management, and identified potential barriers to address prior to implementation.

#2988 Use of rivaroxaban for prevention of thrombotic events in patients with nephrotic syndrome

Abstract Background and Aims Patients with nephrotic syndrome are at increased risk of thrombotic events. The risk of thromboembolism is particularly high in patients with primary membranous nephropathy, elderly patients and patients with severe hypoalbuminemia. Although increased incidence of thrombosis is a well reported complication associated with nephrotic syndrome, management strategies are not well established. Use of aspirin seems to be insufficient to prevent venous thromboembolism. Use of warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparins is inconvenient for outpatients. The aim of the trial was to evaluate effectiveness and safety of rivaroxaban in venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in patients with nephrotic syndrome. Method The randomized single-center trial was performed from October 2020 to November 2023. 30 adult patients with nephrotic syndrome due to primary glomerular diseases and glomerular filtration rate more than 60 ml/min were divided into two groups. The treatment group (n = 15) received 10-20 mg of rivaroxaban daily. The control group (n = 15) had no anticoagulation therapy. Thrombotic events and bleedings were recorded. Results Patients in both groups received immunosuppressive treatment of nephrotic syndrome according to primary disease. Rivaroxaban was prescribed for the entire treatment period until the onset of remission. Patients with membranous nephropathy were equally represented in both study groups (4 per group). No thromboembolic events were recorded in both groups. As well as there were no bleeding complications in patients who received rivaroxaban. Conclusion Rivaroxaban might be a possible alternative to warfarin and low-molecular-weight heparins in prevention of thrombosis in nephrotic syndrome. However, indications for anticoagulant prophylaxis, its duration and discontinuation are still not clear. Future studies should address the question regarding the utility of primary thromboprophylaxis.

Validation of the Safety and Efficacy of Apixaban as Postoperative Thromboembolism Prophylaxis for Patients with Gynecologic Malignancies.

Venous thromboembolism is a preventable complication of gynecologic cancer surgery that leads to postoperative morbidity and mortality. This study compared apixaban with enoxaparin to identify whether apixaban had the same safety and efficacy for patients undergoing gynecologic cancer surgery. The study identified patients with a gynecologic malignancy who underwent surgery and were prescribed apixaban at discharge between June 2020 and April 2023. International Classification of Diseases 10 codes were used to identify patients who had a thromboembolism within 90 days or a bleeding event within 60 days after surgery. The rates of events for patients prescribed apixaban were compared with those for a historical cohort of patients who received enoxaparin. Fisher's exact tests were used to compare categorical variables, and t tests were used to compare continuous variables. A logistic regression was performed to compare the odds of thromboembolism between the two groups. Baseline patient characteristics differed in terms of body mass index (BMI), race, route of surgery, and type of cancer. Of the 490 patients in the apixaban cohort, 12 (2.4%) had a thromboembolism compared with 3 (2.1%) of the 138 patients in the enoxaparin group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-4.70; p > 0.999). The odds ratio was adjusted for BMI, age, and route of surgery. A bleeding event occurred for 1 (0.2%) of the 490 patients in the apixaban group and for 1 (0.7%) of the 138 patients in the enoxaparin group. This validation study showed that apixaban is a safe and effective method of postoperative venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. The data provide support to previous data and guideline updates recommending the use of apixaban for postoperative prophylaxis.

Prevalence of risk factors for venous thromboembolism and aspirin resistance in Australian patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty.

Aspirin is used for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis after total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA/TKA). However, its efficacy is unclear in patients with multiple VTE risk factors and at risk of aspirin resistance (AR). To determine the prevalence of risk factors for VTE and AR in patients after THA/TKA and to determine the relationship between risk factors and drugs prescribed for thromboprophylaxis. A retrospective cohort study of elective-THA/TKA in six Australian hospitals over a 1-year period. Medical records were manually reviewed to determine demographics, thromboprophylaxis regimen and presence of risk factors. The relationship between individual and cumulative risk factors with the thromboprophylaxis regimen was determined. In total, 1011 patients were included with a mean (SD) age of 65.9 (±11.0) years, and 56.4% were female. The five most prevalent risk factors were obesity (59.1%), age ≥65 years (58.2%), hypertension (45.3%), dyslipidaemia (35.9%) and diabetes (19.7%). Most patients had ≥1 risk factor for VTE (93.6%) and AR (93.6%), with 49.0% and 35.0% having ≥3 concurrent VTE and AR risk factors, respectively. The only significant relationship between risk factors and drugs was diabetes (P < 0.01). Rivaroxaban was more commonly used as the number of concurrent VTE risk factors increased (P < 0.05). Patients had a high prevalence of VTE and AR risk factors, suggesting aspirin may not be beneficial in many patients. Only diabetes was linked to the selection of thromboprophylaxis. Patients who received rivaroxaban had a greater average number of VTE risk factors. Guidelines should promote individualised prescribing in higher-risk patients.

Comment on 'The role of aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials'.

Comment on 'The role of aspirin versus low-molecular-weight heparin for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis after total knee arthroplasty: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials'.

Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism with low molecular weight heparins in surgical patients – 2024: Council of Experts resolution

On March 15, 2024, in Moscow, the Russian Phlebological Association and the National Association of Specialists in Thrombosis, Clinical Hemostasiology and Hemorheology organized a meeting of the Council of Experts during the Russian Forum on Thrombosis and Hemostasis on the acute issues of venous thromboembolism (VTE) primary prevention using low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) in surgical patients with different body weight. The participants reviewed the relevance and prevalence of this problem in surgical practice, discussed risk factors and the frequency of VTE development, including bleeding in the postoperative period, and the Caprini risk score for complications. The discussion also focused on standard and personalized LMWH doses for primary prophylaxis of VTE in the perioperative period in surgical patients, depending on body weight, and the role of laboratory tests, including assessment of LMWH anti-Xa activity for monitoring the efficacy and safety of VTE primary prevention in clinical practice.

Factor XI inhibitors: a new option for the prevention and treatment of cancer-associated thrombosis

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a relatively common complication in cancer patients with potentially dire consequences. Anticoagulants are the mainstay of treatment of cancer-associated VTE. The anticoagulants most often used are low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) and direct oral factor (F) Xa inhibitors, which include apixaban, edoxaban, and rivaroxaban. Most guidelines recommend primary VTE prophylaxis with LMWH, apixaban, or rivaroxaban after abdominal or pelvic cancer surgery, or in high-risk ambulatory cancer patients. Both oral FXa inhibitors and LMWH have limitations. LMWH requires daily subcutaneous injections, and because of its renal clearance, its use may be problematic in patients with severe kidney disease. The risk of bleeding with oral FXa inhibitors may be higher than with LMWH in patients with intraluminal gastrointestinal or genitourinary cancers. Other problems with oral FXa inhibitors include potential drug-drug interactions and dosing issues in patients with thrombocytopenia or severe kidney or liver disease. Therefore, there remains a need for convenient and safer anticoagulants for VTE treatment in cancer patients. FXI has emerged as a potentially safer target for anticoagulants than FXa because FXI is essential for thrombosis, but mostly dispensable for hemostasis. This review summarizes the currently available therapeutic options for cancer-associated VTE, highlights knowledge gaps, and discusses the potential of FXI inhibitors to address key unmet clinical needs in this vulnerable patient population.

Role of Vena Cava Filter in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Injured Adult Patients: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma [RETRACTED

Injured patients are at an increased risk of developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE). Inferior vena cava (IVC) filters have been used in injured patients to prevent venous thromboembolism (VTE), but current evidence-based guidelines are lacking. Questions regarding IVC filter use in injured patients with clearly defined Population(s), Intervention(s), Comparison(s), and appropriately selected Outcomes (PICO) were formulated. The study sought to understand the evidence behind use of ultra short term IVC filters and use of IVC filters in injured patients with and without known VTE who are unable to receive therapeutic anticoagulation and chemoprophylaxis, respectively. A literature search and review was conducted, followed by meta-analysis. The quality of evidence was assessed per Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. There were twenty-one studies that were analyzed. Three studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), three were observational studies, and fifteen studies were retrospective studies. In injured patients without known acute VTE who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis, we recommend against placement of an IVC filter due to associated higher rate of mortality, DVT, PE, and length of stay. The quality of evidence was assessed to be low. In injured patients with known DVT who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis we conditionally recommend against placement of an IVC filter. The quality of evidence was assessed to be very low. No recommendations can be made with respect to placement of ultra short term IVC filters based upon available data. IVC filters should not be placed routinely for prophylaxis in injured adult patients without known VTE who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis. The taskforce conditionally recommends against the placement of IVC filter in injured adult patients with known DVT who cannot receive chemoprophylaxis. Guideline; Systematic review/meta-analysis, level IV.

Role of Vena Cava Filter in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Injured Adult Patients: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma: Retraction.

Role of Vena Cava Filter in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of Venous Thromboembolism in Injured Adult Patients: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Practice Management Guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma: Retraction.

Pharmacologic Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in Patients with Nontraumatic Subarachnoid Hemorrhage Requiring an External Ventricular Drain.

Optimal pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis dosing is not well described in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) with an external ventricular drain (EVD). Our patients with SAH with an EVD who receive prophylactic enoxaparin are routinely monitored using timed anti-Xa levels. Our primary study goal was to determine the frequency of venous thromboembolism (VTE) and secondary intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) for this population of patients who received pharmacologic prophylaxis with enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin (UFH). A retrospective chart review was performed for all patients with SAH admitted to the neurocritical care unit at Emory University Hospital between 2012 and 2017. All patients with SAH who required an EVD were included. Of 1,351 patients screened, 868 required an EVD. Of these 868 patients, 627 received enoxaparin, 114 received UFH, and 127 did not receive pharmacologic prophylaxis. VTE occurred in 7.5% of patients in the enoxaparin group, 4.4% in the UFH group (p = 0.32), and 3.2% in the no VTE prophylaxis group (p = 0.08). Secondary ICH occurred in 3.83% of patients in the enoxaparin group, 3.51% in the UFH group (p = 1), and 3.94% in the no VTE prophylaxis group (p = 0.53). As steady-state anti-Xa levels increased from 0.1 units/mL to > 0.3 units/mL, there was a trend toward a lower incidence of VTE. However, no correlation was noted between rising anti-Xa levels and an increased incidence of secondary ICH. When compared, neither enoxaparin nor UFH use was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of VTE or an increased incidence of ICH. In this retrospective study of patients with nontraumatic SAH with an EVD who received enoxaparin or UFH VTE prophylaxis or no VTE prophylaxis, there was no statistically significant difference in the incidence of VTE or secondary ICH. For patients receiving prophylactic enoxaparin, achieving higher steady-state target anti-Xa levels may be associated with a lower incidence of VTE without increasing the risk of secondary ICH.

Audit of VTE prophylaxis risk assessment and prescribing for general medical inpatients

Venous thromboembolism is a significant cause of morbidity and mortalityamongst hospitalised patients. The aim was to review the current level ofcompleteness of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis risk assessmentdocumentation at Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust. TheVTE prophylaxis risk assessment form is provided on Cerner and all doctorsare prompted to complete this when opening a patient record. The riskassessment proforma ensures that all patients who are assessed as either atmoderate or high risk of VTE during their admission receive pharmacologicalVTE prophylaxis or if contraindicated mechanical prophylaxis. Usingthe Trusts thromboprophylaxis guideline, six standards were defined. Thetarget for each standard is set at 100% and complies with national auditstandards for preventing hospital acquired VTE and PE. Results are shown further in the text:Ninety three per cent of admissions had documented assessments onadmission to hospital. 0.03% had VTE risk reassessed within 24 h- and some of these patients would have gone to other wards first, 12.5% had24 h reassessment documented which did not meet national targets.Limitations faced included: limited timeframe of data collection, smallsample size and prophylaxis could have been prescribed, but the clinicianhad not recorded the assessment on the electronic record (Cerner).These findings have been presented to our local general internal medicinedepartment. We plan to reaudit VTE compliance on another GIM ward.We expect findings to be similar; therefore we plan to implement a changeto improve compliance rates to the national standard. We will then reauditwithin 6 months to see if we have improved. I’m looking forward tothe results!

QIP on VTE prevention in stroke patients within 24 hours

This abstract focuses on the initial problem of suboptimal venous thromboembolism(VTE) prevention among stroke patients in our hospital’sstroke unit. The relevance to acute medicine and the subsequent analysis,intervention, and results are discussed. Lessons learned, additionalchanges, and the authors’ plans for sustainable practice change are alsoaddressed.The QIP revealed inadequate adherence to VTE prevention guidelinesin stroke patients, posing a significant risk. The relevance to acute medicinelies in the vulnerability of stroke patients to VTE due to immobilityand altered coagulation profiles.The analysis found that only 60% of eligible stroke patients receivedappropriate VTE prophylaxis, necessitating an intervention to improveadherence. A multidisciplinary team developed a protocol for risk assessment,pharmacological prevention, early mobilisation, and patienteducation.The intervention significantly improved adherence to VTE preventionmeasures, with 85% of eligible stroke patients receiving appropriate prophylaxis.Lessons learned emphasised collaboration, standardised protocols,and ongoing education. Regular audits and feedback facilitatedsustained improvements.Further changes were made to enhance sustainability, including integratingthe protocol into electronic medical records, educating new staff,and appointing a VTE prevention champion.In conclusion, this study successfully implemented an intervention forVTE prevention in stroke patients, resulting in improved adherence toguidelines and reduced VTE events. The findings underscore the importanceof proactive measures and interdisciplinary collaboration in acutemedicine, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and safety.

BRAVEST: A Visual Teaching Aid for Stroke Clinicians

Stroke clinicians incorporate essential stroke care measures into their professional practice within certified stroke centers on a regular basis. Supported by evidence-based guidelines, these time-sensitive care requirements target the unique needs of stroke patients making them essential for optimal translation to bedside clinical practice. Varied interprofessional staff learning styles call for educational instruction to be engaging and innovative to yield intended results. This article introduces a new learning tool called BRAVEST (B: Blood pressure; R: Rehabilitation; A: Antithrombotics; V: Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; E: Education; S: Statin therapy; T: Thrombolysis/Thrombectomy), a custom-made visual aid that presents evidence-based, certification-required acute stroke care as a creative mnemonic infographic to enhance interprofessional stroke clinicians’ learning and retention.

Update on Venous Thromboembolism in Orthopaedic Trauma Surgery

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a notable contributor to the morbidity and mortality of patients with orthopaedic trauma. Several associations have published guidelines on VTE prophylaxis, with a strong predilection toward low-molecular-weight heparin for chemoprophylaxis. However, previous recommendations may be revisited because recent high-level evidence demonstrated aspirin to be noninferior to low-molecular-weight heparin in preventing serious complications of VTE. Direct oral anticoagulants are emerging as safe alternatives to injectable medication and may offer improved patient compliance. There is no consensus on postinjury duration of chemoprophylaxis as an outpatient. Mechanical prophylaxis remains an important adjunctive VTE preventive measure for inpatients with pelvis and extremity fractures. Proteomics and novel laboratory measurements may be able to predict high-risk patients and detect early thrombus formation. Despite high-quality prospective research over the past decade, we still have much to learn about patient- and injury-specific risk factors.

PREVALENCE OF VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM IN PATIENTS WITH TOTAL CONTACT CAST

BackgroundVenous Thrombo-Embolism is a recognized complication of lower limb immobilization. In the neuropathic patient total contact casting (TCC) is used in the management of acute charcot neuroathropathy and/or to off-load neuropathic ulcers, frequently for long time periods. To our knowledge there is no literature stating the prevalence of VTE in patients undergoing TCC. We perceive that neuropathic patients with active charcot have other risk factors for VTE which would predispose them to this condition and would mandate the use of prophylaxis. We report a retrospective case series assessing the prevalence of VTE in the patients being treated with TCCs.MethodsPatients undergoing TCC between 2006 and 2018 were identified using plaster room records. These patients subsequently had clinical letters and radiological reports assessed for details around the TCC episode, past medical history and any VTE events.ResultsThere were 143 TCC episodes in 104 patients. Average age at cast application was 55 years. Time in cast averaged 45 days (range 5 days – 8 months, median 35 days). 3 out of 4 patients had neuropathy as a consequence of diabetes. One TCC related VTE (0.7% of casting episodes) was documented. This was a proximal DVT confirmed on USS 9 days following cast removal. No patient received VTE prophylaxis while in TCC.ConclusionDespite these complex patients having a multitude of co-morbidities the prevalence of VTE in the TCC setting remains similar to that of the general population. This may be due to the fact that TCCs permit weight bearing. This case series suggests that, while all patients should be individually VTE risk assessed as for any lower limb immobilization, chemical thromboprophylaxis is not routinely indicated in the context of TCCs.

Updated review on malignancy-associated venous thromboembolism: Pathogenesis and comparison between various therapeutic modalities

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is one of the life-threatening complications in cancer patients, the incidence of which is affected by the patient and malignancy-related variables. Location, type, therapeutic route, stage, grade, and non-supportive treatment of the cancer are the most important VTE risk factors. Patient age, ethnicity, and concomitant genetic or acquired comorbidities or thrombophilias are known risk factors for VTE in cancer. All high-risk cancer patients admitted to hospitals or treated as outpatients should receive VTE prophylaxis. Low molecular weight heparin is the main treatment for active malignant VTE. Vitamin K antagonists and non-Vitamin K-dependent oral anticoagulants are used in stable, non-bleeding cancer patients. Anticoagulation should be continued until the cancer is treated or at least controlled. Over the past two decades, randomized clinical and observational trials have improved the pathogenesis and therapeutic knowledge of VTE, but many challenges remain. The lack of an optimal primary prophylaxis method for inpatients and outpatients in oncology and the care of cancer-associated VTE in standard and high-bleeding risk groups are examples for which more clinical research on cancer-associated thrombosis is necessary to address these issues. In this review, we describe the pathogenesis, factors that increase the risk of VTE, and the comparison between the effectiveness of available anticoagulants in the treatment and prevention of VTE in cancer patients.

Gynecological Cancer and Venous Thromboembolism: A Narrative Review to Increase Awareness and Improve Risk Assessment and Prevention.

The prevention and appropriate management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients is of paramount importance. However, the literature data report an underestimation of this major problem in patients with gynecological cancers, with an inconsistent venous thromboembolism risk assessment and prophylaxis in this patient setting. This narrative review provides a comprehensive overview of the available evidence regarding the management of venous thromboembolism in cancer patients, focusing on the specific context of gynecological tumors, exploring the literature discussing risk factors, risk assessment, and pharmacological prophylaxis. We found that the current understanding and management of venous thromboembolism in gynecological malignancy is largely based on studies on solid cancers in general. Hence, further, larger, and well-designed research in this area is needed.

In-hospital thromboprophylaxis variation and the risk of venous thromboembolism after lung cancer surgery: a nationwide cohort study.

Venous thromboembolic event (VTE) is a severe complication in patients with lung cancer undergoing thoracic surgery. Nevertheless, because of insufficient evidence, there are no clear guidelines, and VTE prophylaxis practices vary widely. This nationwide cohort study was a comparative study investigating VTE risk in surgical departments that routinely administered in-hospital thromboprophylaxis with low-molecular-weight heparin compared to those that did not. We identified all patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) who underwent surgery in Denmark during 2010-2021. Thoracic surgery was exclusively performed in the 4 university hospitals. Three hospitals implemented in-hospital thromboprophylaxis as standard care since 2000, while the fourth adopted this practice in September 2016. VTE events were assessed at 6-month follow-up according to hospital and study period, using an inverse probability of treatment weighting approach. We identified 9615 patients. During 6-month follow-up, a total of 190 VTE events were observed, resulting in a weighted rate of 4.5 events per 100 person-years and an absolute risk of 2.2%. There was no clear trend according to hospital site or use of in-hospital thromboprophylaxis with a 2.2% risk in the hospital not using thromboprophylaxis compared to 1.7-3.1% in those that did. Use of in-hospital thromboprophylaxis did not affect the risk of VTE after surgery for NSCLC, suggesting that relying solely on in-hospital thromboprophylaxis may be insufficient to mitigate VTE risk in these patients. Further research is warranted to investigate the potential benefits of extended thromboprophylaxis in reducing VTE risk in selected NSCLC surgical patients.

Evaluation of a Risk Screening Checklist for Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis in a Women and Newborn Hospital

ABSTRACT Introduction The venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk screening forms were developed to allow for recording identified risk factors for VTE including thrombophilia, history of VTE, postpartum hemorrhage, and cesarean delivery, and documentation of specific actions taken to mitigate these risks and reduce complications due to VTE. Methods Compliance with hospital guidelines in assessing VTE risk and appropriate prescribing of thromboprophylaxis was evaluated prior to the introduction of VTE risk screening forms (March 2022). Efficacy of the new VTE risk screening forms was also assessed (April 2023). Patient discharge summaries and patient medical records including medication charts were used to review the documentation of VTE risk assessments and details of thromboprophylaxis prescribing. Results Of 74 postnatal patients, 37.8% had VTE risk assessment documented prior to the introduction of VTE risk screening forms. Of 37 patients identified to be at moderate to high risk of VTE requiring pharmacological prophylaxis, 70.3% (n = 26) were appropriately prescribed pharmacological prophylaxis. After the risk screening forms were introduced, a total of 67 antenatal, postnatal, and gynecologic patients were studied. Of these, 32.8% (n = 22) of patients had all required fields completed appropriately. When using the forms, 26.9% (n = 7) of postnatal and 88% (n = 22) of gynecological patients were rated as medium or high risk, and all received medical review within 24 hours. Pharmacological prophylaxis was indicated in 88% (n = 22) of gynecological, 43.8% (n = 7) of antenatal, and 38.5% (n = 10) of postnatal patients, and all were appropriately prescribed. Conclusion The guideline review and introduction of VTE risk screening forms was valuable to provide guidance in the risk assessment for VTE and to identify patients requiring prophylaxis.