Sustained Impact of Electronic Alerts on Rate of Prophylaxis against Venous Thromboembolism

Research Center for Medical Informatics, Research and Education, University Hospital Zurich, Switzerland.
Thrombosis and Haemostasis (Impact Factor: 4.98). 07/2011; 106(4):734-8. DOI: 10.1160/TH11-04-0220
Source: PubMed


Advanced electronic alerts (eAlerts) and computerised physician order entry (CPOE) increase adequate thromboprophylaxis orders among hospitalised medical patients. It remains unclear whether eAlerts maintain their efficacy over time, after withdrawal of continuing medical education (CME) on eAlerts and on thromboprophylaxis indications from the study staff. We analysed 5,317 hospital cases from the University Hospital Zurich during 2006-2009: 1,854 cases from a medical ward with eAlerts (interventiongroup) and 3,463 cases from a surgical ward without eAlerts (controlgroup). In the intervention group, an eAlert with hospital-specific venous thromboembolism (VTE) prevention guidelines was issued in the electronic patient chart 6 hours after admission if no pharmacological or mechanical thromboprophylaxis had been ordered. Data were analysed for three phases: pre-implementation (phase 1), eAlert implementation with CME (phase 2), and post-implementation without CME (phase3). The rates of thromboprophylaxis in the intervention group were 43.4% in phase 1 and 66.7% in phase 2 (p<0.001), and increased further to 73.6% in phase3 (p=0.011). Early thromboprophylaxis orders within 12 hours after admission were more often placed in phase 2 and 3 as compared to phase 1 (67.1% vs. 52.1%, p<0.001). In the surgical control group, the thromboprophylaxis rates in the three phases were 88.6%, 90.7%, 90.6% (p=0.16). Advanced eAlerts may provide sustained efficacy over time, with stable rates of thromboprophylaxis orders among hospitalised medical patients.

13 Reads
  • Source
    • "during the 4 months after implementation. The following year, VTE prophylaxis orders increased further to 73.6% (p=0.011).33 The rates of prophylaxis among these medical patients still did not reach those for surgical patients (approximately 90%) who were used as the control arm (table 4). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of preventable harm for hospitalised patients. Over the past decade, numerous intervention types have been implemented in attempts to improve the prescription of VTE prophylaxis in hospitals, with varying degrees of success. We reviewed key articles to assess the efficacy of different types of interventions to improve prescription of VTE prophylaxis for hospitalised patients. Methods We conducted a search of MEDLINE for key studies published between 2001 and 2012 of interventions employing education, paper based tools, computerised tools, real time audit and feedback, or combinations of intervention types to improve prescription of VTE prophylaxis for patients in hospital settings. Process outcomes of interest were prescription of any VTE prophylaxis and best practice VTE prophylaxis. Clinical outcomes of interest were any VTE and potentially preventable VTE, defined as VTE occurring in patients not prescribed appropriate prophylaxis. Results 16 articles were included in this review. Two studies employed education only, four implemented paper based tools, four used computerised tools, two evaluated audit and feedback strategies, and four studies used combinations of intervention types. Individual modalities result in improved prescription of VTE prophylaxis; however, the greatest and most sustained improvements were those that combined education with computerised tools. Conclusions Many intervention types have proven effective to different degrees in improving VTE prevention. Provider education is likely a required additional component and should be combined with other intervention types. Active mandatory tools are likely more effective than passive ones. Information technology tools that are well integrated into provider workflow, such as alerts and computerised clinical decision support, can improve best practice prophylaxis use and prevent patient harm resulting from VTE.
    BMJ quality & safety 05/2013; 23(3). DOI:10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001782 · 3.99 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Real-life data on post-discharge venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis practices and treatments are lacking. We assessed post-operative VTE prophylaxis prescribed and received in a prospective registry, compared with the 2004 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines in high-risk orthopaedic surgery patients. Consecutive patients undergoing total hip arthroplasty (THA), hip fracture surgery (HFS), or knee arthroplasty (KA) were enrolled at discharge from 161 centres in 17 European countries if they had received in-hospital VTE prophylaxis that was considered in accordance with the ACCP guidelines by the treating physician. Data on prescribed and actual prophylaxis were obtained from hospital charts and patient post-discharge diaries. Post-operative prophylaxis prescribed and actual prophylaxis received were considered adherent or adequate, respectively, if recommended therapies were used for ≥28 days (HFS and THA) or ≥10 days (KA). Among 4,388 patients, 69.9% were prescribed ACCP-adherent VTE prophylaxis (THA: 1,411/2,217 [63.6%]; HFS: 701/1,112 [63.0%]; KA: 955/1,059 [90.2%]). Actual prophylaxis received was described in 3,939 patients with an available diary after discharge (non-evaluability rate of 10%). Mean actual durations of pharmacological prophylaxis from surgery were: 28.4 ± 13.7 (THA), 29.3 ± 13.9 (HFS), and 28.7 ± 14.1 days (KA). ACCP-adequate VTE prophylaxis was received by 66.5% of patients (60.9% THA, 55.4% HFS, and 88.7% KA). Prophylaxis inadequacies were mainly due to inadequate prescription, non-recommended prophylaxis prescription at discharge, or too short prophylaxis prescribed. In high-risk orthopaedic surgery patients with hospital-initiated prophylaxis, there is a gap between ACCP recommendations, prescribed and actual prophylaxis received, mainly due to inadequate prescription at discharge.
    Thrombosis and Haemostasis 12/2011; 107(2):270-9. DOI:10.1160/TH11-07-0463 · 4.98 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common cause of potentially preventable mortality, morbidity, and increased medical costs. Risk-appropriate prophylaxis can prevent most VTE events, but only a small fraction of patients at risk receive this treatment. Prospective quality improvement programme. Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. A multidisciplinary team established a VTE Prevention Collaborative in 2005. The collaborative applied the four step TRIP (translating research into practice) model to develop and implement a mandatory clinical decision support tool for VTE risk stratification and risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis for all hospitalised adult patients. Initially, paper based VTE order sets were implemented, which were then converted into 16 specialty-specific, mandatory, computerised, clinical decision support modules. VTE risk stratification within 24 hours of hospital admission and provision of risk-appropriate, evidence based VTE prophylaxis. The VTE team was able to increase VTE risk assessment and ordering of risk-appropriate prophylaxis with paper based order sets to a limited extent, but achieved higher compliance with a computerised clinical decision support tool and the data feedback which it enabled. Risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis increased from 26% to 80% for surgical patients and from 25% to 92% for medical patients in 2011. A computerised clinical decision support tool can increase VTE risk stratification and risk-appropriate VTE prophylaxis among hospitalised adult patients admitted to a large urban academic medical centre. It is important to ensure the tool is part of the clinician's normal workflow, is mandatory (computerised forcing function), and offers the requisite modules needed for every clinical specialty.
    BMJ (online) 06/2012; 344(jun19 6):e3935. DOI:10.1136/bmj.e3935 · 17.45 Impact Factor
Show more


13 Reads
Available from