BACKGROUND: Standardized electronic order sets for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis have increased the proportion of patients receiving venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. However, ordering venous thromboembolism prophylaxis does not ensure consistent administration. OBJECTIVE: To explore causes of variability in the rate of administration of ordered doses of pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among hospital units. DESIGN: Mixed methods study, including qualitative observation and quantitative nursing survey administration. SUBJECTS: Nurses included in observations were practicing on an inpatient unit, caring for patients with orders to receive venous thromboembolism prophylaxis consisting of low-dose unfractionated heparin or low-molecular weight heparin. Nurses on 12 inpatient units with disparate rates of administration were included in the survey. MEASURES: Qualitative observation data were collected until thematic saturation was achieved. Survey was conducted to identify beliefs and practices surrounding nursing administration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. RESULTS: During observations, some nurses presented pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to their patients as an optional therapy. Nurses on low-performing units are more likely to believe that pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is ordered for patients who do not require it. More often, they also acknowledge that nurses use their clinical decision-making skills to determine when to omit unnecessary doses of prescribed venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses on units with low administration rates often believe they have the skills to determine which patients require pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. They are also more likely to believe that ordered doses are discretionary and offer the medication as optional to patients.
BACKGROUND: Standardized electronic order sets for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis have increased the proportion of patients receiving venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. However, ordering venous thromboembolism prophylaxis does not ensure consistent administration. OBJECTIVE: To explore causes of variability in the rate of administration of ordered doses of pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among hospital units. DESIGN: Mixed methods study, including qualitative observation and quantitative nursing survey administration. SUBJECTS: Nurses included in observations were practicing on an inpatient unit, caring for patients with orders to receive venous thromboembolism prophylaxis consisting of low-dose unfractionated heparin or low-molecular weight heparin. Nurses on 12 inpatient units with disparate rates of administration were included in the survey. MEASURES: Qualitative observation data were collected until thematic saturation was achieved. Survey was conducted to identify beliefs and practices surrounding nursing administration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. RESULTS: During observations, some nurses presented pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis to their patients as an optional therapy. Nurses on low-performing units are more likely to believe that pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis is ordered for patients who do not require it. More often, they also acknowledge that nurses use their clinical decision-making skills to determine when to omit unnecessary doses of prescribed venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Nurses on units with low administration rates often believe they have the skills to determine which patients require pharmacological venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. They are also more likely to believe that ordered doses are discretionary and offer the medication as optional to patients.
Authors: Brandyn D Lau; Patrick Murphy; Anthony J Nastasi; Stella Seal; Peggy S Kraus; Deborah B Hobson; Dauryne L Shaffer; Christine G Holzmueller; Jonathan K Aboagye; Michael B Streiff; Elliott R Haut Journal: CMAJ Open Date: 2020-12-08
Authors: Brandyn D Lau; Michael B Streiff; Peggy S Kraus; Deborah B Hobson; Dauryne L Shaffer; Jonathan K Aboagye; Peter J Pronovost; Elliott R Haut Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-01 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kara L Piechowski; Stacy Elder; Leigh E Efird; Elliott R Haut; Michael B Streiff; Brandyn D Lau; Peggy S Kraus; Cynthia S Rand; Victor O Popoola; Deborah B Hobson; Norma E Farrow; Dauryne Shaffer; Kenneth M Shermock Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2016-11 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Haresh L Bhatia; Neal R Patel; Catherine H Ivory; Phillip W Stewart; Kim M Unertl; Christoph U Lehmann Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2017-11-21 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Anthony D Yang; Daniel Brock Hewitt; Eddie Blay; Lindsey J Kreutzer; Christopher M Quinn; Kimberly A Cradock; Vivek Prachand; Karl Y Bilimoria Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 13.787
Authors: Brandyn D Lau; Dauryne L Shaffer; Deborah B Hobson; Gayane Yenokyan; Jiangxia Wang; Elizabeth A Sugar; Joseph K Canner; David Bongiovanni; Peggy S Kraus; Victor O Popoola; Hasan M Shihab; Norma E Farrow; Jonathan K Aboagye; Peter J Pronovost; Michael B Streiff; Elliott R Haut Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-08-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Patrice Lazure; James Munn; Sara Labbé; Suzanne Murray; Regina Butler; Kate Khair; Angela Lambing; Maura Malone; Thomas Reiser; Fiona Newall Journal: Res Pract Thromb Haemost Date: 2018-11-01
Authors: Lindsey Kreutzer; Anthony D Yang; Christina Sansone; Christina Minami; Lily Saadat; Karl Y Bilimoria; Julie K Johnson Journal: J Hosp Med Date: 2019-08-16 Impact factor: 2.960
Authors: Victor O Popoola; Brandyn D Lau; Hasan M Shihab; Norma E Farrow; Dauryne L Shaffer; Deborah B Hobson; Susan V Kulik; Paul D Zaruba; Kenneth M Shermock; Peggy S Kraus; Peter J Pronovost; Michael B Streiff; Elliott R Haut Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-03-31 Impact factor: 3.240