Effectiveness of Healthcare Delivery, Quality, and Safety a Patient Education Bundle on Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Administration by Sex.

INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a frequent cause of preventable harm among hospitalized patients. Many prescribed prophylaxis doses are not administered despite supporting evidence. We previously demonstrated a patient-centered education bundle improved VTE prophylaxis administration broadly; however, patient-specific factors driving nonadministration are unclear. We examine the effects of the education bundle on missed doses of VTE prophylaxis by sex. METHODS: We performed a post-hoc analysis of a nonrandomized controlled trial to evaluate the differences in missed doses by sex. Pre-intervention and intervention periods for patients admitted to 16 surgical and medical floors between 10/2014-03/2015 (pre-intervention) and 04/2015-12/2015 (intervention) were compared. We examined the conditional odds of (1) overall missed doses, (2) missed doses due to patient refusal, and (3) missed doses for other reasons. RESULTS: Overall, 16,865 patients were included (pre-intervention 6853, intervention 10,012), with 2350 male and 2460 female patients (intervention), and 6373 male and 5682 female patients (control). Any missed dose significantly reduced on the intervention floors among male (odds ratio OR 0.55; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.44-0.70, P < 0.001) and female (OR 0.59; 95% CI, 0.47-0.73, P < 0.001) patients. Similar significant reductions ensued for missed doses due to patient refusal (P < 0.001). Overall, there were no sex-specific differences (P-interaction >0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Our intervention increased VTE prophylaxis administration for both female and male patients, driven by decreased patient refusal. Patient education should be applicable to a wide range of patient demographics representative of the target group. To improve future interventions, quality improvement efforts should be evaluated based on patient demographics and drivers of differences in care.

Nonadministration of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is less common in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) in patients hospitalized with COVID-19 is higher than most other hospitalized patients. Nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is common and is associated with VTE events. Our objective was to determine whether nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is more common in patients with COVID-19 versus other hospitalized patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this retrospective cohort analysis of all adult patients discharged from the Johns hopkins hospital between Mar 1 and May 12, 2020, we compared demographic, clinical characteristics, VTE outcomes, prescription and administration of VTE prophylaxis between COVID-19 positive, negative, and not tested groups. RESULTS: Patients tested positive for COVID-19 were significantly older, and more likely to be Hispanic, have a higher median body mass index, have longer hospital length of stay, require mechanical ventilation, develop pulmonary embolism and die (all p < 0.001). COVID-19 patients were more likely to be prescribed (aOR 1.51, 95% CI 1.38-1.66) and receive all doses of prescribed pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis (aOR 1.48, 95% CI 1.36-1.62). The number of patients who missed at least one dose of VTE prophylaxis and developed VTE was similar between the three groups (p = 0.31). CONCLUSIONS: It is unlikely that high rates of VTE in COVID-19 are due to nonadministration of doses of pharmacologic prophylaxis. Hence, we should prioritize research into alternative approaches to optimizing VTE prevention in patients with COVID-19.

Characterizing the relationship between age and venous thromboembolism in adult trauma patients: findings from the National Trauma Data Bank and the National Inpatient Sample.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a tremendous burden in health care. However, current guidelines lack recommendations regarding the prevention of VTE in older adult trauma patients. Furthermore, the appropriate method of modeling of age in VTE models is currently unclear. METHODS: Patients included in the National Trauma Data Bank (NTDB) between the years 2008 and 2014 and patients included in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) between 2009 and 2013 were analyzed. Multiple logistic regression of VTE on age was performed. RESULTS: Of 3,598,881 patients in the NTDB, 34,202 (1.0%) were diagnosed with VTE compared to 5405 (1.1%) of the 505,231 patients in NIS. In both the fully adjusted NTDB and NIS model, age was positively associated with odds of VTE diagnosis under 65 years (NTDB, adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.018, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.017-1.019, P < 0.001; NIS, aOR: 1.025, 95% CI 1.022-1.027, P < 0.001). In patients aged ≥65 years, age was negatively associated with odds of VTE diagnosis in the NTDB (aOR: 0.995, 95% CI: 0.992-0.999, P = 0.006) but not in the NIS (aOR: 0.998, 95% CI 0.994-1.002, P = 0.26). CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of VTE among adult trauma patients steadily increases with age until 65 years, after which the odds of VTE appear to level off or even slightly decrease. These findings should be applied for improved modeling of VTE in trauma patients. The mechanism behind these findings should be explored before using them to update guidelines for standardized VTE prevention in older adults.

Individualized Performance Feedback to Surgical Residents Improves Appropriate Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Prescription and Reduces Potentially Preventable VTE: A Prospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of providing personal clinical effectiveness performance feedback to general surgery residents regarding prescription of appropriate venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis. BACKGROUND: Residents are frequently charged with prescribing medications for patients, including VTE prophylaxis, but rarely receive individual performance feedback regarding these practice habits. METHODS: This prospective cohort study at the Johns Hopkins Hospital compared outcomes across 3 study periods: (1) baseline, (2) scorecard alone, and (3) scorecard plus coaching. All general surgery residents (n = 49) and surgical patients (n = 2420) for whom residents wrote admission orders during the first 9 months of the 2013-2014 academic year were included. Outcomes included the proportions of patients prescribed appropriate VTE prophylaxis, patients with preventable VTE, and residents prescribing appropriate VTE prophylaxis for every patient, and results from the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident survey. RESULTS: At baseline, 89.4% of patients were prescribed appropriate VTE prophylaxis and only 45% of residents prescribed appropriate prophylaxis for every patient. During the scorecard period, appropriate VTE prophylaxis prescription significantly increased to 95.4% (P < 0.001). For the scorecard plus coaching period, significantly more residents prescribed appropriate prophylaxis for every patient (78% vs 45%, P = 0.0017). Preventable VTE was eliminated in both intervention periods (0% vs 0.35%, P = 0.046). After providing feedback, significantly more residents reported receiving data about practice habits on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education resident survey (87% vs 38%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing personal clinical effectiveness feedback including data and peer-to-peer coaching improves resident performance, and results in a significant reduction in harm for patients.

Beneficial "halo effects" of surgical resident performance feedback.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention is one of the most frequent measures of quality in hospital settings. In 2013, we began providing individualized feedback to general surgery residents about their VTE prophylaxis prescribing habits for general surgical patients. The purpose of this study was to investigate the indirect, or "halo effects" of providing individualized performance feedback to residents regarding prescription of appropriate VTE prophylaxis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study compared appropriate VTE prophylaxis prescription for all patients admitted to the adult trauma service from July 1, 2012 to May 31, 2015 at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, an academic hospital and Level 1 trauma center in Baltimore, Maryland. On October 1, 2013, we began providing monthly performance feedback to general surgery residents regarding their VTE prophylaxis prescribing habits for general surgery patients. Data were not provided about their prescription practice for trauma patients, or to any other prescribers within the hospital. RESULTS: During the study period, 931 adult trauma patients were admitted to the adult trauma service. After providing individualized feedback about general surgery patients, general surgery residents' prescribing practice for writing appropriate VTE prophylaxis orders for adult trauma patients significantly improved (93.9% versus 78.1%, P < 0.001). Prescription practice significantly improved among all other prescribers although they did not receive any specific individualized feedback, (84.9% versus 75.1%, P = 0.025); however, practice was significantly better among general surgery residents versus other providers (93.9% versus 84.9%, P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: There is a beneficial "halo effect" for patients treated by residents receiving individualized feedback about practice habits. Individualized feedback regarding practice habits for one patient type has both a direct and indirect effect on the quality of care patients receive and should be implemented for all providers.

Prescriber knowledge and attitudes regarding non-administration of prescribed pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis.

Pharmacologic venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis is important patient safety practice in hospitalized patients. However, a substantial number of ordered doses are not administered. Patient and nursing attitudes and behaviors can influence whether a patient receives a dose. The objective of this single center study was to evaluate prescriber knowledge and attitudes regarding missed doses of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis. An anonymous, 9-question survey was administered to internal medicine and general surgery resident physicians. The survey captured prescriber opinions on issues related to non-administration of VTE prophylaxis. Thirty-two percent of medicine residents compared with 3 % of surgery residents felt pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was not necessary in an independently ambulating patient (P < 0.001). Medicine residents were more likely to agree that it is appropriate for nurses to make clinical decisions to determine whether a dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis should be administered to a patient (24 vs. 0 %, P < 0.001). Study findings indicate the need for additional resident physician education. Further investigation is needed to assess these beliefs and ensure patients receive necessary VTE prophylaxis.

Is the Meaningful Use Venous Thromboembolism VTE-6 Measure Meaningful? A Retrospective Analysis of One Hospital's VTE-6 Cases.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common, often deadly cause of preventable harm for hospitalized patients. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Meaningful Use VTE-6 measure automatically captures data documented in a Meaningful Use-certified electronic health record (EHR) to identify patients with potentially preventable VTE, defined as those who developed radiologically confirmed, in-hospital VTE and did not receive prophylaxis between admission and the day prior to the diagnostic test order date. The validity of the Meaningful Use VTE-6 measure was assessed by reviewing the quality of VTE prophylaxis provided to patients identified by the measure. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was performed on all patients identified by VTE-6 during the first year of Meaningful Use Stage 1. The following information was abstracted from the Meaningful Use-certified EHR: patient demographics, clinical data, VTE prophylaxis prescribed and administered, and diagnostic testing. These data were then analyzed to assess prevention efforts prior to each VTE event and identify potential targets for improvement. RESULTS: Fifteen patients were identified as having sustained potentially preventable VTE by the Meaningful Use VTE-6 measure. Nine (60%) of the 15 patients identified were false positives and did not meet the rationale of the measure. For only 6 (40%) of the 15 patients was VTE considered to be truly potentially preventable; those patients provided targets for quality improvement measures. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients identified by the Meaningful Use VTE-6 algorithm did not suffer truly potentially preventable VTE. Misclassification of VTE as "potentially preventable" hinders efforts to target true opportunities for quality improvement.

Eliminating Health Care Disparities With Mandatory Clinical Decision Support: The Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Example.

BACKGROUND: All hospitalized patients should be assessed for venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk factors and prescribed appropriate prophylaxis. To improve best-practice VTE prophylaxis prescription for all hospitalized patients, we implemented a mandatory computerized clinical decision support (CCDS) tool. The tool requires completion of checklists to evaluate VTE risk factors and contraindications to pharmacological prophylaxis, and then recommends the risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis regimen. OBJECTIVES: The objective of the study was to examine the effect of a quality improvement intervention on race-based and sex-based health care disparities across 2 distinct clinical services. RESEARCH DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study of a quality improvement intervention. SUBJECTS: The study included 1942 hospitalized medical patients and 1599 hospitalized adult trauma patients. MEASURES: In this study, the proportion of patients prescribed risk-appropriate, best-practice VTE prophylaxis was evaluated. RESULTS: Racial disparities existed in prescription of best-practice VTE prophylaxis in the preimplementation period between black and white patients on both the trauma (70.1% vs. 56.6%, P=0.025) and medicine (69.5% vs. 61.7%, P=0.015) services. After implementation of the CCDS tool, compliance improved for all patients, and disparities in best-practice prophylaxis prescription between black and white patients were eliminated on both services: trauma (84.5% vs. 85.5%, P=0.99) and medicine (91.8% vs. 88.0%, P=0.082). Similar findings were noted for sex disparities in the trauma cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the fact that risk-appropriate prophylaxis should be prescribed equally to all hospitalized patients regardless of race and sex, practice varied widely before our quality improvement intervention. Our CCDS tool eliminated racial disparities in VTE prophylaxis prescription across 2 distinct clinical services. Health information technology approaches to care standardization are effective to eliminate health care disparities.

Impact of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis "smart order set": Improved compliance, fewer events.

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects over 700,000 Americans annually. Prophylaxis reduces the risk of VTE by 60% but many patients still do not receive risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis. To improve our institution's VTE prophylaxis performance, we developed mandatory computerized clinical decision support-enabled "smart order sets" that required providers to assess VTE risk factors and contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis. Using provider responses, the order set recommends evidence-based risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis. To study the impact of our "smart order set" on prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis and clinical outcomes, we conducted a retrospective chart review of consecutive patients admitted to the Medicine service during one month immediately prior to (November 2007) and a single month subsequent to (April 2010) order set launch. Data collection included patient demographics, VTE risk factors, and the use and type of VTE prophylaxis. The pre- and post-implementation cohorts contained 1,000 and 942 patients, respectively. After implementation of the "smart order set", the prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis increased from 65.6% to 90.1% (P < 0.0001). Orders for any form of VTE prophylaxis increased from 76.4% to 95.6% (P < 0.0001). Radiographically documented symptomatic VTE within 90 days of hospital discharge declined from 2.5% to 0.7% (P = 0.002). Preventable harm was completely eliminated (1.1% to 0%, P = 0.001) with no difference in major bleeding or all-cause mortality. A VTE prophylaxis computerized clinical decision support-enabled "smart order set" improved prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis, reduced symptomatic VTE and eliminated preventable harm from VTE without increasing major bleeding.

Analysis of the projected utility of dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban and their future impact on existing Hematology and Cardiology Anticoagulation Clinics at The Johns Hopkins Hospital.

The purpose of this study is to determine the percentage of patients in the Johns Hopkins Anticoagulation Clinics that are potential candidates for the new oral anticoagulants, dabigatran, rivaroxaban, and apixaban. A retrospective chart review was conducted of patients managed in the Johns Hopkins Cardiology and Hematology Anticoagulation Clinics between November 1, 2009 and October 31, 2010. Data elements collected include demographics, primary indication for anticoagulation, renal function, hepatic function, and concomitant medications. These factors were considered against product labeling guidelines and inclusion/exclusion criteria from clinical studies to derive candidacy status for each oral anticoagulant for each patient. Patients who met at least one caution or contraindication criteria were deemed "non-candidates"; potential dosage reductions of the new oral anticoagulants were not considered. Four hundred ninety-one patients participated in the study. Among participants, 63% would be dabigatran candidates, 62% rivaroxaban candidates, and 70% would be candidates for apixaban. Dabigatran use would be cautioned against in 34%, rivaroxaban in 18 %, and apixaban in 30%. Four percent had contraindications to dabigatran, whereas 21% had contraindications to rivaroxaban. More than 60% of patients in the Johns Hopkins Anticoagulation Clinics appear to be potential candidates for each of the new oral anticoagulants, assuming they are eventually approved for the same indications as warfarin. Many patients fell into the "cautioned" category, which demonstrates the complexity associated with selecting candidates for these new agents.

Alert-Triggered Patient Education Versus Nurse Feedback for Nonadministered Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Doses: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background Many hospitalized patients are not administered prescribed doses of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Methods and Results In this cluster-randomized controlled trial, all adult non-intensive care units (10 medical, 6 surgical) in 1 academic hospital were randomized to either a real-time, electronic alert-triggered, patient-centered education bundle intervention or nurse feedback intervention to evaluate their effectiveness for reducing nonadministration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Primary outcome was the proportion of nonadministered doses of prescribed pharmacologic prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes were proportions of nonadministered doses stratified by nonadministration reasons (patient refusal, other). To test our primary hypothesis that both interventions would reduce nonadministration, we compared outcomes pre- versus postintervention within each cohort. Secondary hypotheses were tested comparing the effectiveness between cohorts. Of 11 098 patient visits, overall dose nonadministration declined significantly after the interventions (13.4% versus 9.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57-0.71]). Nonadministration decreased significantly (P<0.001) in both arms: patient-centered education bundle, 12.2% versus 7.4% (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.48-0.66]), and nurse feedback, 14.7% versus 11.2% (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62-0.84]). Patient refusal decreased significantly in both arms: patient-centered education bundle, 7.3% versus 3.7% (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37-0.58]), and nurse feedback, 9.5% versus 7.1% (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59-0.86]). No differential effect occurred on medical versus surgical units. The patient-centered education bundle was significantly more effective in reducing all nonadministered (P=0.03) and refused doses (P=0.003) compared with nurse feedback (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.0-1.61]; P=0.03 for interaction). Conclusions Information technology strategies like the alert-triggered, targeted patient-centered education bundle, and nurse-focused audit and feedback can improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis administration. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03367364.

Systematic Undercoding of Diagnostic Procedures in National Inpatient Sample (NIS): A Threat to Validity Due to Surveillance Bias.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Health services research often relies on readily available data, originally collected for administrative purposes and used for public reporting and pay-for-performance initiatives. We examined the prevalence of underreporting of diagnostic procedures for acute myocardial infarction (AMI), deep venous thrombosis (DVT), and pulmonary embolism (PE), used for public reporting and pay-for-performance initiatives. METHOD: We retrospectively identified procedures for AMI, DVT, and PE in the National Inpatient Sample (NIS) database between 2012 and 2016. From January 1, 2012, through September 30, 2015, the NIS used the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) coding scheme. From October 1, 2015, through December 31, 2016, the NIS used the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) coding scheme. We grouped the data by ICD code definitions (ICD-9 or ICD-10) to reflect these code changes and to prevent any confounding or misclassification. In addition, we used survey weighting to examine the utilization of venous duplex ultrasound scan for DVT, electrocardiogram (ECG) for AMI, and chest computed tomography (CT) scan, pulmonary angiography, echocardiography, and nuclear medicine ventilation/perfusion () scan for PE. RESULTS: In the ICD-9 period, by primary diagnosis, only 0.26% (n = 5930) of patients with reported AMI had an ECG. Just 2.13% (n = 7455) of patients with reported DVT had a peripheral vascular ultrasound scan. For patients with PE diagnosis, 1.92% (n = 12 885) had pulmonary angiography, 3.92% (n = 26 325) had CT scan, 5.31% (n = 35 645) had cardiac ultrasound scan, and 0.45% (n = 3025) had scan. In the ICD-10 period, by primary diagnosis, 0.04% (n = 345) of reported AMI events had an ECG and 0.91% (n = 920) of DVT events had a peripheral vascular ultrasound scan. For patients with PE diagnosis, 2.08% (n = 4805) had pulmonary angiography, 0.63% (n = 1460) had CT scan, 1.68% (n = 3890) had cardiac ultrasound scan, and 0.06% (n = 140) had scan. Small proportions of diagnostic procedures were observed for any diagnoses of AMI, DVT, or PE. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings question the validity of using NIS and other administrative databases for health services and outcomes research that rely on certain diagnostic procedures. Unfortunately, the NIS does not provide granular data that can control for differences in diagnostic procedure use, which can lead to surveillance bias. Researchers and policy makers must understand and acknowledge the limitations inherent in these databases, when used for pay-for-performance initiatives and hospital benchmarking.

Audit and Feedback to Surgery Interns and Residents on Prescribing Risk-Appropriate Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of feedback using an emailed scorecard and a web-based dashboard on risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis prescribing practices among general surgery interns and residents. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The Johns Hopkins Hospital, an urban academic medical center. PARTICIPANTS: All 45 trainees (19 post-graduate year [PGY] 1 interns and 26 PGY-2 to PGY-5 residents) in our general surgery program. INTERVENTION: Feedback implementation encompassed three sequential periods: (1) scorecard (July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2015); (2) no feedback/wash-in (July 1 through October 31, 2015); and (3) web-based dashboard (November 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016). No feedback served as the baseline period for the intern cohort. The scorecard was a static document showing an individual's compliance with risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis prescription compared to compliance of their de-identified peers. The web-based dashboard included other information (e.g., patient details for suboptimal prophylaxis orders) besides individual compliance compared to their de-identified peers. Trainees could access the dashboard anytime to view current and historic performance. We sent monthly emails to all trainees for both feedback mechanisms. Main outcome was proportion of patients prescribed risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis, and mean percentages reported. RESULTS: During this study, 4088 VTE prophylaxis orders were placed. Among residents, mean prescription of risk-appropriate prophylaxis was higher in the wash-in (98.4% vs 95.6%, p < 0.001) and dashboard (98.4 vs 95.6%, p < 0.001) periods compared to the scorecard period. There was no difference in mean compliance between the wash-in and dashboard periods (98.4% vs 98.4%, p = 0.99). Among interns, mean prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis improved between the wash-in and dashboard periods (91.5% vs 96.4%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Using audit and individualized performance feedback to general surgery trainees through a web-based dashboard improved prescribing of appropriate VTE prophylaxis to a near-perfect performance.

Penny-wise, pound-foolish? Highmark Medicare Services' proposal for anticoagulation clinic reimbursement.

Warfarin is prescribed to millions of Americans for the management of thromboembolism and is a common cause of adverse events. Optimizing warfarin therapy has been the focus of national quality improvement initiatives. Anticoagulation clinics have been demonstrated to result in better outcomes than usual care. Nevertheless, Highmark Medicare Services recently issued a provider bulletin on anticoagulation clinic visit reimbursement that we believe will adversely affect the care for patients on anticoagulation. In this commentary, we review the potential unintended consequences of this proposal and offer alternatives that we believe will increase the efficiency and quality of anticoagulation management.

Effectiveness of ambulation to prevent venous thromboembolism in patients admitted to hospital: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Patient ambulation is frequently recommended to help prevent venous thromboembolism during hospital admission. Our objective was to synthesize the evidence for ambulation as a prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospital. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials indexed from their inception through April 2020 for studies of adult patients admitted to hospital, in which ambulation or mobilization alone or concomitant with prophylaxis was indicated for prevention of venous thromboembolism. We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for unpublished trials. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Two reviewers independently screened articles and assessed risk of bias using 2 validated tools. We scored studies on quality of reporting, internal and external validity and study power; combined scores determined the overall quality. RESULTS: Eighteen articles met the inclusion criteria: 8 retrospective and 2 prospective cohorts, 7 RCTs and 1 secondary analysis of an RCT. The intervention (ambulation or mobilized) groups varied across studies. Five studies examined exercise as a therapeutic prophylaxis for thrombosis and 9 described an ambulation protocol. Five studies attempted to quantify amount and duration of patient ambulation and 3 reported ambulation distance. In the 5 studies rated as good or excellent statistical quality, findings were mixed. Incidence of venous thromboembolism was lowest when pharmacologic anticoagulants were added as part of the prescribed prophylaxis regimen. INTERPRETATION: We did not find high-quality evidence supporting ambulation alone as an effective prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism. Ambulation should not be considered an adequate prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism, nor as an adequate reason to discontinue pharmacologic prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism during a patient's hospital admission.

Defects in Processes of Care for Pharmacologic Prophylaxis Are Common Among Neurosurgery Patients Who Develop In-Hospital Postoperative Venous Thromboembolism.

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a cause of considerable morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. An evidence-based algorithm was developed and implemented at our institution to guide perioperative VTE prophylaxis management. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated compliance with prescription of risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis and administration of prescribed VTE prophylaxis in neurosurgery patients. METHODS: This was a retrospective analysis of postoperative neurosurgery patients at a single institution with subsequent diagnosis of acute VTE during their inpatient stay. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis and prescribing patterns. RESULTS: The incidence of VTE in our neurosurgery population was 248/13,913 (1.8%). Of the 123 patients, the median time to VTE diagnosis was 96 hours after surgery (interquartile range [IQR], 58-188 hours). A total of 108 patients (87.8%) were prescribed risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis, among whom 61 (56.5%) received all doses as prescribed. Fifty-three patients (43.1%) missed ≥1 dose of prescribed prophylaxis and the median missed doses was 3 (IQR, 0-3). The median time to first dose of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis was 42 hours (IQR, 28-51). More than half (n = 63, 51.2%) of the VTE risk assessments contained ≥1 error, of which 15 (23.8%) would have resulted in a change in recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Our evidence-based VTE prophylaxis algorithm was not accurately completed in more than half of patients. Many patients who developed VTE had a defect in their VTE prophylaxis management during their inpatient stay. Research to improve optimal VTE prevention practice in neurosurgery patients is needed.

Using electronic health record system triggers to target delivery of a patient-centered intervention to improve venous thromboembolism prevention for hospitalized patients: Is there a differential effect by race?

BACKGROUND: Racial disparities are common in healthcare. Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable harm, and disparities observed in prevention practices. We examined the impact of a patient-centered VTE education bundle on the non-administration of preventive prophylaxis by race. METHODS: A post-hoc, subset analysis (stratified by race) of a larger nonrandomized trial. Pre-post comparisons analysis were conducted on 16 inpatient units; study periods were October 2014 through March 2015 (baseline) and April through December 2015 (post-intervention). Patients on 4 intervention units received the patient-centered, nurse educator-led intervention if the electronic health record alerted a non-administered dose of VTE prophylaxis. Patients on 12 control units received no intervention. We compared the conditional odds of non-administered doses of VTE prophylaxis when patient refusal was a reason for non-administration, stratified by race. RESULTS: Of 272 patient interventions, 123 (45.2%) were white, 126 (46.3%) were black, and 23 (8.5%) were other races. A significant reduction was observed in the odds of non-administration of prophylaxis on intervention units compared to control units among patients who were black (OR 0.61; 95% CI, 0.46-0.81, p<0.001), white (OR 0.57; 95% CI, 0.44-0.75, p<0.001), and other races (OR 0.50; 95% CI, 0.29-0.88, p = 0.015). CONCLUSION: Our finding suggests that the patient education materials, developed collaboratively with a diverse group of patients, improved patient's understanding and the importance of VTE prevention through prophylaxis. Quality improvement interventions should examine any differential effects by patient characteristics to ensure disparities are addressed and all patients experience the same benefits.