INTRODUCTION: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has become a major issue for surgeons both in the UK and worldwide. Several different sources of guidance on VTE prophylaxis are available but these differ in design and detail. METHODS: Two similar audits were performed, one year apart, on the VTE prophylaxis prescribed for all general surgical inpatients during a single week (90 patients and 101 patients). Classification of patients into different risk groups and compliance in prescribing prophylaxis were examined using different international, national and local guidelines. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the numbers of patients in high, moderate and low-risk groups according to the different guidelines. When groups were combined to indicate simply 'at risk' or 'not at risk' (in the manner of one of the guidelines), then differences were not significant. Our compliance improved from the first audit to the second. Patients at high risk received VTE prophylaxis according to guidance more consistently than those at low risk. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in guidance on VTE prophylaxis can affect compliance significantly when auditing practice, depending on the choice of 'gold standard'. National guidance does not remove the need for clear and detailed local policies. Making decisions about policies for lower-risk patients can be more difficult than for those at high risk.
INTRODUCTION:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has become a major issue for surgeons both in the UK and worldwide. Several different sources of guidance on VTE prophylaxis are available but these differ in design and detail. METHODS: Two similar audits were performed, one year apart, on the VTE prophylaxis prescribed for all general surgical inpatients during a single week (90 patients and 101 patients). Classification of patients into different risk groups and compliance in prescribing prophylaxis were examined using different international, national and local guidelines. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the numbers of patients in high, moderate and low-risk groups according to the different guidelines. When groups were combined to indicate simply 'at risk' or 'not at risk' (in the manner of one of the guidelines), then differences were not significant. Our compliance improved from the first audit to the second. Patients at high risk received VTE prophylaxis according to guidance more consistently than those at low risk. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in guidance on VTE prophylaxis can affect compliance significantly when auditing practice, depending on the choice of 'gold standard'. National guidance does not remove the need for clear and detailed local policies. Making decisions about policies for lower-risk patients can be more difficult than for those at high risk.
Authors: D Deheinzelin; A L Braga; L C Martins; M A Martins; A Hernandez; W B Yoshida; F Maffei; M Monachini; D Calderaro; W Campos; G T Sguizzatto; B Caramelli Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2006-06 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: William H Geerts; Graham F Pineo; John A Heit; David Bergqvist; Michael R Lassen; Clifford W Colwell; Joel G Ray Journal: Chest Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: D Bergqvist; U S Burmark; P A Flordal; J Frisell; T Hallböök; M Hedberg; A Horn; E Kelty; P Kvitting; A Lindhagen Journal: Br J Surg Date: 1995-04 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: Alexander T Cohen; Victor F Tapson; Jean-Francois Bergmann; Samuel Z Goldhaber; Ajay K Kakkar; Bruno Deslandes; Wei Huang; Maksim Zayaruzny; Leigh Emery; Frederick A Anderson Journal: Lancet Date: 2008-02-02 Impact factor: 79.321