Dataset Information

Unintended consequences of a standard admission order set on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and patient outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Standard order sets often increase the use of desirable interventions for patients likely to benefit from them. Whether such order sets also increase misuse of these interventions in patients potentially harmed by them is unknown. We measured the association between a paper-based standard admission order set with a venous thromboembolism pharmacoprophylaxis (VTEP) module and use of VTEP for patients likely to benefit from it as well as patients with unclear benefit or potential harm from it.We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative and pharmacy charge data of patients admitted between 1 July 2005 and 31 December 2008 to two medical and three surgical services that implemented a standard admission order set in August 2006. The primary outcome was use of VTEP in patients with likely benefit, unclear benefit, and potential harm from VTEP prior to and following order set implementation.A total of 8,429 patients (32%) were admitted prior to and 17,635 (68%) following order set implementation. There was a small unadjusted rise in overall VTEP use after implementation (51% to 58%, p?

SUBMITTER: Khanna R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3286563 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Unintended consequences of a standard admission order set on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and patient outcomes.

Khanna Raman R Vittinghoff Eric E Maselli Judith J Auerbach Andrew A

Journal of general internal medicine 20110924 3

<h4>Background</h4>Standard order sets often increase the use of desirable interventions for patients likely to benefit from them. Whether such order sets also increase misuse of these interventions in patients potentially harmed by them is unknown. We measured the association between a paper-based standard admission order set with a venous thromboembolism pharmacoprophylaxis (VTEP) module and use of VTEP for patients likely to benefit from it as well as patients with unclear benefit or potentia ...[more]

PMID: 21948203

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective:To study the impact of multiphase quality improvement efforts to enhance appropriate use of chemical and mechanical venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis (VTEP) on the rate of hospital-acquired VTE and determine whether efforts have been associated with increased bleeding complications. Patients and Methods:All adult inpatients discharged between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2015, were included in the study. Retrospective interrupted time series analysis compared VTEP performance, VTE outcomes, and unintended consequences (derived from linked administrative and clinical data) across 5 improvement phases: baseline (January 1, 2005-December 31, 2006), paper order set phase (January 1, 2007-February 9, 2009), electronic order set phase (February 10, 2009-December 16, 2009), active reminder phase (December 17, 2009-May 31, 2012), and maintenance phase (June 1, 2012-September 30, 2015). Results:Guideline VTEP plan adherence at the end of the study period (including documenting contraindications) reached 88.8% (654,138 of 736,384 patient days). Delivery of pharmacological VTEP increased from 43.9% (49,155 of 111,906 patients) to 60.8% (75,784 of 124,676 patients); delivery of mechanical or pharmacological VTEP increased less (65.0% [431,791 of 664,087 patient days] to 67.4% [496,625 of 736,384 patient days]). Mean VTE rates decreased from 4.6 per 1000 hospitalizations (21.7 VTEs per month) at baseline to 4.3 per 1000 hospitalizations (18.0 VTEs per month) during the maintenance phase (P<.001). More than 97% of patients who had development of VTE (534 of 548) received VTEP, but 65.7% (360 of 548) experienced gaps of 1 or more days in VTEP delivery. Measured in-hospital bleeding rates were fairly consistent over the study (4.6% [5,198 of 111,906 patients] at baseline to 5.3% [6,662 of 124,676 patients] during the reminder phase). There was little change in rates of 7-day readmission with bleeding or VTE. Conclusion:Our VTEP project improved guideline compliance, increased the proportion of patients receiving VTEP, and was associated with a decrease in VTE. Gaps in VTEP delivery occurred despite protocoled order sets and electronic feedback. Further improvements in VTE may require new approaches.

Project description:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) kills more people than breast cancer, road traffic accidents, and AIDS combined, accounting for approximately 25,000 in-hospital deaths in England annually. The cost to the NHS is estimated at £640 million/annum. The most important element of VTE risk assessment strategy in England is to risk assess all patients for VTE on admission. The aim of our quality improvement programme (QIP) was to monitor our practice regarding VTE prophylaxis of the patients' admitted urgently in our department, and then implement a measure to increase compliance if found to be poor. Our standards were based on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines which state that all urgently admitted patients must have a completed VTE assessment form within 24 hours of admission and receive appropriate VTE prophylaxis including low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and/or TED stockings. Our initial audit was conducted over a period of five weeks. All adult patients acutely admitted out of hours (5pm to 8am) were included. We then introduced a specially designed urological admissions proforma and organised several teaching sessions for junior doctors who facilitated acute admissions. Re-audit was performed using the same methods and timescale measuring improvement. Second re-audit six months after the introduction of the proforma, following the induction of the new cohort of junior doctors. - Primary audit: n=44. Proportion of: completed VTE form=56%, LMWH appropriately prescribed=65%,TEDS=35%. VTE related complications=3 - 1st re-audit: n=42. Proportion of: completed VTE form=93%, LMWH appropriately prescribed=83%,TEDS=64%. VTE related complications=0 - 2nd re-audit:n=43. Proportion of: completed VTE form=92%, LMWH prescribed=84%, TEDS=76%. VTE related complications=1 There has been a significant increase of compliance with the NICE guidelines regarding VTE prophylaxis within our department through introducing the specially designed urological admissions proforma and delivering teaching sessions for junior doctors. The implementation of the proforma also led to decreased prevalence of VTE related complications and their subsequent morbidity and mortality.

Project description:IntroductionThe risk of mortality in patients with COVID-19 was found to be significantly higher in patients who experienced thromboembolic events. Thus, several guidelines recommend using prophylactic anticoagulants in all COVID-19 hospitalized patients. However, there is uncertainty about the appropriate dosing regimen and safety of anticoagulation in critically ill patients with COVID-19. Thus, this study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of standard versus escalated dose pharmacological venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19.MethodsA two-center retrospective cohort study including critically ill patients aged ≥ 18-years with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) at two tertiary hospitals in Saudi Arabia from March 1st, 2020, until January 31st, 2021. Patients who received either Enoxaparin 40 mg daily or Unfractionated heparin 5000 Units three times daily were grouped under the "standard dose VTE prophylaxis and patients who received higher than the standard dose but not as treatment dose were grouped under "escalated VTE prophylaxis dose". The primary outcome was the occurance of thrombotic events, and the secondary outcomes were bleeding, mortality, and other ICU-related complications.ResultsA total of 758 patients were screened; 565 patients were included in the study. We matched 352 patients using propensity score matching (1:1). In patients who received escalated dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis, any case of thrombosis and VTE were similar between the two groups (OR 1.22;95 %CI 0.52-2.86; P = 0.64 and OR 0.75; 95% CI 0.16-3.38; P = 0.70 respectively). However, the odds of minor bleeding was higher in patients who received escalated VTE prophylaxis dose (OR 3.39; 95% CI 1.08-10.61; P = 0.04). There was no difference in the 30-day mortality nor in-hospital mortality between the two groups (HR 1.17;95 %CI0.79-1.73; P = 0.43 and HR 1.08;95 %CI 0.76-1.53; P = 0.83, respectively).ConclusionEscalated-dose pharmacological VTE prophylaxis in critically ill patients with COVID-19 was not associated with thrombosis, or mortality benefits but led to an increased risk of minor bleeding. This study supports previous evidence regarding the optimal dosing VTE pharmacological prophylaxis regimen for critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Dataset Information

Unintended consequences of a standard admission order set on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and patient outcomes.

Publications

Unintended consequences of a standard admission order set on venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and patient outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets