Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters

Database
Language
Affiliation country
Publication year range
1.
Pediatr Blood Cancer ; 71(3): e30843, 2024 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38173090

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To design and evaluate a clinical decision support (CDS) module to improve guideline concordant venous thromboembolism (VTE) pharmacoprophylaxis prescribing for pediatric inpatients with COVID-19. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The proportion of patients who met our institutional clinical practice guideline's (CPG) criteria for VTE prophylaxis was compared to those who triggered a CDS alert, indicating the patient needed VTE prophylaxis, and to those who were prescribed prophylaxis pre and post the launch of a new VTE CDS module to support VTE pharmacoprophylaxis prescribing. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value, F1-score and accuracy of the tool were calculated for the pre- and post-intervention periods using the CPG recommendation as the gold standard. Accuracy was defined as the sum of the true positives and true negatives over the sum of the true positives, false positives, true negatives, and false negatives. Logistic regression was used to identify variables associated with correct thromboprophylaxis prescribing. RESULTS: A significant increase in the proportion of patients triggering a CDS alert occurred in the post-intervention period (44.3% vs. 6.9%, p < .001); however, no reciprocal increase in VTE prophylaxis prescribing was achieved (36.6% vs. 40.9%, p = .53). The updated CDS module had an improved sensitivity (55.0% vs. 13.3%), NPV (44.9% vs. 36.3%), F1-score (66.7% vs. 23.5%), and accuracy (62.5% vs. 42.0%), but an inferior specificity (78.6% vs. 100%) and PPV (84.6% vs. 100%). DISCUSSION: The updated CDS model had an improved accuracy and overall performance in correctly identifying patients requiring VTE prophylaxis. Despite an increase in correct patient identification by the CDS module, the proportion of patients receiving appropriate pharmacologic prophylaxis did not change. CONCLUSION: CDS tools to support correct VTE prophylaxis prescribing need ongoing refinement and validation to maximize clinical utility.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Decision Support Systems, Clinical , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Child , Venous Thromboembolism/drug therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Inpatients , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Risk Factors
2.
Pediatr Blood Cancer ; 70(2): e30112, 2023 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36495543

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The incidence of venous thrombo-embolism (VTE) in hospitalized children has increased by 130%-200% over the last two decades. Given this increase, many centers utilize electronic clinical decision support (CDS) to prognosticate VTE risk and recommend prophylaxis. SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) is a risk factor for VTE; however, CDS developed before the COVID-19 pandemic may not accurately prognosticate VTE risk in children with COVID-19. This study's objective was to identify areas to improve thromboprophylaxis recommendations for children with COVID-19. METHODS: Inpatients with a positive COVID-19 test at admission were identified at a quaternary-care pediatric center between March 1, 2020 and January 20, 2022. The results of the institution's automated CDS thromboprophylaxis recommendations were compared to institutional COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis guidelines and to the actual thromboprophylaxis received. CDS optimization was performed to improve adherence to COVID-19 thromboprophylaxis recommendations. RESULTS: Of the 329 patients included in this study, 106 (28.2%) were prescribed pharmaco-prophylaxis, 167 (50.8%) were identified by the institutional COVID-19 guidelines as requiring pharmaco-prophylaxis, and 45 (13.2%) were identified by the CDS as needing pharmaco-prophylaxis. On univariate analysis, only age 12 years or more was associated with recipient of appropriate prophylaxis (OR 1.78, 95% CI: 1.13-2.82, p = .013). Five patients developed VTEs; three had symptoms at presentation, two were identified as high risk for VTE by both the automated and best practice assessments but were not prescribed pharmaco-prophylaxis. CONCLUSION: Automated thromboprophylaxis recommendations developed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic may not identify all COVID-19 patients needing pharmaco-prophylaxis. Existing CDS tools need to be updated to reflect COVID-19-specific risk factors for VTEs.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Venous Thromboembolism , Humans , Child , Anticoagulants/therapeutic use , Venous Thromboembolism/etiology , Venous Thromboembolism/prevention & control , Venous Thromboembolism/epidemiology , COVID-19/complications , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , Hospitals , Risk Factors
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL