Literature DB >> 31164020

Sequential compression device compliance in pregnant women requiring antepartum admission.

Meinuo Chen1, Kathryn A Sarnoski2, Laura H Jacques2, Timothy Klatt3, Anna Palatnik3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A quality improvement study done at the Medical College of Wisconsin between 2014 and 2016 demonstrated that, at baseline, sequential compression devices (SCD) were ordered for 46.0% of admitted antepartum women. In response, provider education and a prechecked SCD order in the electronic antepartum admission order set were implemented.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of these interventions on SCD compliance during antepartum admissions. STUDY
DESIGN: This was a prospective observational study of antepartum women admitted for nondelivery indication for more than 24 hours, from June 2017 through March 2018, in a single tertiary center. The study was conducted a year after provider education and implementation of a prechecked order for SCD in the electronic antepartum admission order set. Women with an active venous thromboembolism (VTE) and those already receiving pharmacologic thromboprophylaxis were excluded. The primary outcome was the rate of SCD compliance, assessed both among obstetric providers and patients. SCD compliance for providers was defined as SCD order present in patient's electronic medical record and documenting the presence of SCD in patient's room. SCD compliance for patients was defined as documentation that the patient was wearing SCD that were turn on while in bed during morning study rounds.
RESULTS: During the study period a total of 182 rounding encounters were documented for 76 women. SCD was ordered in 77.6% (59/76) of the admissions. Out of the 59 electronic orders for SCD, 45 orders (h 76.3%) were placed on hospital day 1 (and 42 orders had confirmation of SCD present in the room (71.2%)). SCD were in active use in 45.2% (19/42) of these women. When evaluating the daily course of the hospitalization (n = 182), SCD were ordered in 86.8% (158/182) of the encounters and present in the room in 72.2% (114/158) of the daily encounters. After excluding 10 women who were ambulatory at the time of rounding (n = 104), SCD were observed being used in 31.7% (33/104) of the nonambulatory women encounters with SCD ordered and present in the room.
CONCLUSION: A prechecked antepartum order set for SCD increased the rate of provider compliance with SCD. However, this increase did not result in high patient compliance with SCD among antepartum women requiring admission for longer than 24 hours. CONDENSATION: A prechecked order for SCD did not lead to high SCD compliance among admitted antepartum women.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Admission; antepartum; compliance; pregnancy; sequential compression device

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31164020      PMCID: PMC9008770          DOI: 10.1080/14767058.2019.1623873

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med        ISSN: 1476-4954


  24 in total

1.  Women's views, adherence and experience with postnatal thromboprophylaxis.

Authors:  Boriana Guimicheva; Jignesh P Patel; Lara N Roberts; Devi Subramanian; Roopen Arya
Journal:  Thromb Res       Date:  2018-11-22       Impact factor: 3.944

2.  Venous thromboembolism: a public health concern.

Authors:  Michele G Beckman; W Craig Hooper; Sara E Critchley; Thomas L Ortel
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Mechanical prophylaxis to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical patients: a prospective trial evaluating compliance.

Authors:  Heather M Bockheim; Karen J McAllen; Randal Baker; Jeffrey F Barletta
Journal:  J Crit Care       Date:  2009-03-27       Impact factor: 3.425

4.  Sequential compression device compliance in postoperative obstetrics and gynecology patients.

Authors:  Megan A Brady; Ashley W Carroll; Kai I Cheang; Celeste Straight; David Chelmow
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  Trends in the incidence of venous thromboembolism during pregnancy or postpartum: a 30-year population-based study.

Authors:  John A Heit; Catie E Kobbervig; Andra H James; Tanya M Petterson; Kent R Bailey; L Joseph Melton
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2005-11-15       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Venous thromboembolism: disease burden, outcomes and risk factors.

Authors:  J A Heit
Journal:  J Thromb Haemost       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.824

7.  National Partnership for Maternal Safety: Consensus Bundle on Venous Thromboembolism.

Authors:  Mary E DʼAlton; Alexander M Friedman; Richard M Smiley; Douglas M Montgomery; Michael J Paidas; Robyn DʼOria; Jennifer L Frost; Afshan B Hameed; Deborah Karsnitz; Barbara S Levy; Steven L Clark
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 7.661

8.  Why does prophylaxis with external pneumatic compression for deep vein thrombosis fail?

Authors:  A J Comerota; M L Katz; J V White
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  1992-09       Impact factor: 2.565

9.  Compliance with mechanical venous thromboproembolism prophylaxis after cesarean delivery.

Authors:  Katherine L Palmerola; Clifton O Brock; Mary E D'Alton; Alexander M Friedman
Journal:  J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med       Date:  2015-12-04

10.  Sequential compression devices in postoperative urologic patients: an observational trial and survey study on the influence of patient and hospital factors on compliance.

Authors:  David F Ritsema; Jennifer M Watson; Amanda P Stiteler; Mike M Nguyen
Journal:  BMC Urol       Date:  2013-04-11       Impact factor: 2.264

View more
  1 in total

1.  Intermittent pneumatic compression for venous thromboembolism prevention: a systematic review on factors affecting adherence.

Authors:  Richard Greenall; Rachel E Davis
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-09-03       Impact factor: 2.692

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.