Dataset Information

Physicians' Views on Utilization of an Electronic Health Record-Embedded Calculator to Assess Risk for Venous Thromboembolism among Medical Inpatients: A Qualitative Study.

ABSTRACT: Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes preventable in-hospital morbidity. Pharmacologic prophylaxis reduces VTE in at-risk patients but also increases bleeding. To increase appropriate prescribing, a risk calculator to guide prophylaxis decisions was developed. Despite efforts to promote its use, providers accessed it infrequently. Objective This study aimed to understand provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and facilitators and barriers to using the risk calculator. Design This is a qualitative study exploring provider perspectives on VTE prophylaxis and the VTE risk calculator. Participants We interviewed attending physicians and advanced practice providers who used the calculator, and site champions who promoted calculator use. Providers were categorized by real-world usage over a 3-month period: low (<20% of the time), moderate (20-50%), or high (>50%). Approach During semistructured interviews, we asked about experiences with VTE, calculator use, perspectives on its implementation, and experiences with other risk assessment tools. Once thematic saturation was reached, transcripts were analyzed using content analysis to identify themes. Results Fourteen providers participated. Five were high utilizers, three were moderate utilizers, and six were low utilizers. Three site champions participated. Eight major themes were identified as follows: (1) ease of use, (2) perception of VTE risk, (3) harms of thromboprophylaxis, (4) overestimation of calculator use, (5) confidence in own ability, (6) underestimation of risk by calculator, (7) variability of trust in calculator, and (8) validation to withhold prophylaxis from low-risk patients. Conclusions While providers found the calculator is easy to use, routine use may be hindered by distrust of its recommendations. Inaccurate perception of VTE and bleeding risk may prevent calculator use.

SUBMITTER: Moss SR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8786561 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGuidelines recommend extended chemoprophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in high-risk patients having operations for inflammatory bowel disease. Quantifying patients' risk of venous thromboembolism, however, remains challenging. We sought (1) to identify factors associated with postdischarge venous thromboembolism in patients undergoing colorectal resection for inflammatory bowel disease and (2) to develop a postdischarge venous thromboembolism risk calculator to guide prescribing of extended chemoprophylaxis.MethodsPatients who underwent an operation for inflammatory bowel disease from 2012 to 2018 were identified from the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program for colectomy and proctectomy procedure targeted modules. Postdischarge venous thromboembolism included pulmonary embolism or deep vein thrombosis diagnosed after discharge from the index hospitalization. Multivariable logistic regression estimated the association of patient/operative factors with postdischarge venous thromboembolism. A postdischarge venous thromboembolism risk calculator was subsequently constructed.ResultsOf 18,990 patients, 199 (1.1%) developed a postdischarge venous thromboembolism within the first 30 postoperative days. Preoperative factors associated with postdischarge venous thromboembolism included body mass index (1.9% with body mass index ≥35 vs 0.8% with body mass index 18.5-24.9; odds ratio 2.34 [95% confidence interval 1.49-3.67]), steroid use (1.3% vs 0.7%; odds ratio 1.91 [95% confidence interval 1.37-2.66]), and ulcerative colitis (1.5% vs 0.8% with Crohn's disease; odds ratio 1.76 [95% confidence interval 1.32-2.34]). Minimally invasive surgery was associated with postdischarge venous thromboembolism (1.2% vs 0.9% with open; odds ratio 1.42 [95% confidence interval 1.05-1.92]), as was anastomotic leak (2.8% vs 1.0%; odds ratio 2.24 [95% confidence interval 1.31-3.83]) and ileus (2.1% vs 0.9%; odds ratio 2.60 [95% confidence interval 1.91-3.54]). The predicted probability of postdischarge venous thromboembolism ranged from 0.2% to 14.3% based on individual risk factors.ConclusionPreoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors are associated with postdischarge venous thromboembolism after an operation for inflammatory bowel disease. A postdischarge venous thromboembolism risk calculator was developed which can be used to tailor extended venous thromboembolism chemoprophylaxis by individual risk.

Project description:BackgroundSymptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) occurs in about 1% of patients within 3 months after admission to a medical unit. Recent evidence for thromboprophylaxis in an unselected medical inpatient population has suggested only a modest net benefit. Consequently, guidelines recommend careful risk stratification to guide thromboprophylaxis.ObjectivesTo compare candidacy for thromboprophylaxis according to 4 risk stratification models: a regional preprinted order (PPO) set used in the study institution, the Padua Prediction Score, and the IMPROVE predictive and associative risk assessment models.MethodsA retrospective review of health records was undertaken for patients with no contraindication to pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis who were admitted to the internal medicine service of a teaching hospital between April and July 2013.ResultsOf the 298 patients in the study cohort, 238 (80.0%) received pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis on admission, ordered according to the regional PPO. However, according to the Padua and the IMPROVE predictive risk assessment models, only 64 (21.5%) and 21 (7.0%) of the patients, respectively, were eligible for thromboprophylaxis at the time of admission. On the basis of risk factors identified during the subsequent hospital stay, 54 (18.1%) of the patients were eligible for thromboprophylaxis according to the IMPROVE associative model. Chance-corrected agreement between the PPO and the published risk assessment models was generally poor, with kappa coefficients of 0.109 for the PPO compared with the Padua Prediction Score and 0.013 for the PPO compared with the IMPROVE predictive model.ConclusionsThese data suggest that quantitative models such as the Padua Prediction Score and the IMPROVE models identify more patients at low risk of venous thromboembolism than do in-hospital qualitative risk assessment models. Adoption of these guideline-based risk assessment models for predicting thromboembolic risk in medical inpatients could reduce the use of pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis from 80% to as low as 7%. Further external prognostic validation of risk assessment models and impact analysis studies may show improvements in safety and resource utilization.

Project description:Background and objective: Hospital acquired venous thromboembolisms (VTEs) are common and preventable. The Queensland Health VTE prophylaxis guidelines, developed in 2018, provide guidance for risk assessment, and prescribing of anticoagulation for prophylaxis and treatment of hospital inpatients. Currently, there are limited recommendations for gastroenterology patients. This study investigated the completion of VTE risk assessments, and the appropriateness of VTE prophylaxis regimens, in accordance with Queensland Health guidelines for gastroenterology patients. The quality and safety of VTE prophylaxis regimens was assessed based on their VTE risk and bleeding risk. Method: A retrospective study was conducted by obtaining a random sample of gastroenterology patients admitted to a tertiary Australian hospital, from 1st May 2019 and 1st May 2020, to determine the compliance of VTE risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis prescribing with state-wide VTE guidelines. The quality and safety of thromboprophylaxis was evaluated using the modified Caprini and HASBLED scores, and subsequent thromboprophylaxis-related complications. Results: Of the 94 patients reviewed, 68 did not have contraindications to thromboprophylaxis. Of these 68 patients, 32 (47%) had no VTE risk assessment recorded in their clinical records and were not prescribed any thromboprophylaxis during the hospitalization. There was no significant difference between thromboprophylaxis prescribing for patients with low VTE risk, compared to moderate to high VTE risk (P = .075). There was a trend for decrease in thromboprophylaxis prescribing as HASBLED bleeding risk score increased, and patients with moderate-high bleed risk were less likely to be prescribed thromboprophylaxis (P = .006). There were no thromboprophylaxis related complications identified. Conclusion: It is essential that all patients have a clearly documented risk assessment and are prescribed thromboprophylaxis according to best practice guidelines. The prescription of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis should continue to be individualized, with each patient assessed holistically.

Project description:ObjectiveVenous thromboembolism (VTE) is reported to occur in up to 33% of patients undergoing major vascular surgery. Despite this high incidence, patients inconsistently receive timely VTE chemoprophylaxis. The true incidence of VTE among patients receiving delayed VTE chemoprophylaxis is unknown. We sought to identify the association of VTE chemoprophylaxis timing on VTE risk, postoperative transfusion rates, and 30-day mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing major open vascular surgery.MethodsPatients undergoing major open vascular surgery (open abdominal aortic aneurysm [oAAA] repair, aortofemoral bypass, and lower extremity infrainguinal bypass [LEB]) were identified using the Michigan Surgical Quality Collaborative (MSQC) between July 2012 and June 2015. The VTE rate was compared between patients receiving early versus delayed VTE chemoprophylaxis. VTE chemoprophylaxis delay was defined as therapy initiation more than 24 hours after surgery. The risk-adjusted association of the chemoprophylaxis timing and VTE development was determined using multivariable logistic regression. Blood transfusion rates, 30-day mortality, and postoperative complications were compared across groups.ResultsA total of 2421 patients underwent major open vascular surgery, including 196 oAAA repair, 259 aortofemoral bypass, and 1966 LEB. The overall incidence of 30-day VTE was 1.40%, ranging from 1.12% for LEB to 3.57% for oAAA repair. Among patients receiving early VTE chemoprophylaxis, the rate of VTE was 0.78% versus 2.26% among those with a delay in VTE chemoprophylaxis (P = .002). When accounting for the preoperative risk of VTE, delayed chemoprophylaxis was associated with a significantly higher risk of VTE (odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.12-5.06; P = .024). The early VTE chemoprophylaxis group was associated with a significantly decreased risk of bleeding compared with those with a delay (14.31% vs 18.90%; P = .002). Overall 30-day mortality and postoperative complications were similar with the exception of an associated higher rate of infectious complications in the delayed VTE chemoprophylaxis group, including superficial surgical site infection (6.00% vs 4.06%; P = .028), pneumonia (3.25% vs 1.85%; P = .028), urinary tract infection (2.95% vs 1.57%; P = .020), and severe sepsis (3.05% vs 1.71%; P = .029).ConclusionsAlthough patients undergoing major open vascular surgery have a low risk of VTE at baseline, there is a significantly greater risk of developing VTE among patients who have a delay in the administration of VTE chemoprophylaxis. Postoperative transfusion rates were significantly lower among patients receiving early chemoprophylaxis. There were no differences in the 30-day mortality and postoperative complications, except for infectious complications. Given these findings, surgeons should consider early chemoprophylaxis in the postoperative setting after major open vascular surgery without contraindication.

Dataset Information

Physicians' Views on Utilization of an Electronic Health Record-Embedded Calculator to Assess Risk for Venous Thromboembolism among Medical Inpatients: A Qualitative Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets