Hanqi Wang1, Yalin Pan1, Tongtong Chen1, Liuping Chen1, Haiying Lv1, Erzhen Chen2, Jieming Qu3, Wei Tang3, Wanying Xu4, Yong Lu5. 1. Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 2. Intensive Care Unit, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 3. Department of Respiratory, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 4. Department of Medical Affairs, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 5. Department of Radiology, Ruijin Hospital, School of Medicine, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. 18917762053@163.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious health problem for which pharmacological prophylaxis has been proven to be effective. However, there are significant gaps between the guidelines and clinical practice. This study is to evaluate the effect of physician educational intervention (PEI) on VTE pharmacological prophylaxis in medical inpatients from the respiratory department. METHODS: Medical inpatients from the respiratory department between February 2014 and December 2016 were recruited in this retrospective cohort study. They were assigned to the PEI group or the control group according to whether their physicians undertook a quality improvement (QI) project carried out in hospital to raise physician awareness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis by educational intervention. Any and appropriate pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rates, the use of appropriate anticoagulants, and the occurrence of VTE events in the two groups were calculated and compared using a chi-square test and continuity correction. Poisson regression analysis was used to evaluate the relative risk (RR) of PEI on the occurrence of VTE events. RESULTS: The any pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rate (11.3% vs. 5.9%, P=0.048) and appropriate pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rate (9.3% vs. 5.5%, P=0.036) in high-risk patients without high major bleeding risk were both significantly higher than the control group. Compared with the control group, appropriate anticoagulants in the PEI group took up a larger proportion of all used anticoagulants (90.3% vs. 78.7%, P=0.007). In anticoagulants used for high-risk patients without high major bleeding, appropriate anticoagulants show no statistical difference between the two groups (93.8% vs. 77.8%, P=0.153). There was no difference in the occurrence of VTE events between the two study groups in overall patients (0.5% vs. 0.6%, P=0.913), and among those with high VTE risk (1.7% vs. 1.0%, P=0.554). PEI had no association with the probability of VTE event occurrence (RR, 1.246; 95% CI, 0.478-2.188, P=0.954). CONCLUSIONS: Educational intervention effectively increased physician awareness of VTE prophylaxis in the respiratory department. Further interventions are still necessary since the guidelines were implemented to a relatively low degree.
BACKGROUND:Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious health problem for which pharmacological prophylaxis has been proven to be effective. However, there are significant gaps between the guidelines and clinical practice. This study is to evaluate the effect of physician educational intervention (PEI) on VTE pharmacological prophylaxis in medical inpatients from the respiratory department. METHODS: Medical inpatients from the respiratory department between February 2014 and December 2016 were recruited in this retrospective cohort study. They were assigned to the PEI group or the control group according to whether their physicians undertook a quality improvement (QI) project carried out in hospital to raise physician awareness of pharmacological thromboprophylaxis by educational intervention. Any and appropriate pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rates, the use of appropriate anticoagulants, and the occurrence of VTE events in the two groups were calculated and compared using a chi-square test and continuity correction. Poisson regression analysis was used to evaluate the relative risk (RR) of PEI on the occurrence of VTE events. RESULTS: The any pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rate (11.3% vs. 5.9%, P=0.048) and appropriate pharmacological VTE prophylaxis rate (9.3% vs. 5.5%, P=0.036) in high-risk patients without high major bleeding risk were both significantly higher than the control group. Compared with the control group, appropriate anticoagulants in the PEI group took up a larger proportion of all used anticoagulants (90.3% vs. 78.7%, P=0.007). In anticoagulants used for high-risk patients without high major bleeding, appropriate anticoagulants show no statistical difference between the two groups (93.8% vs. 77.8%, P=0.153). There was no difference in the occurrence of VTE events between the two study groups in overall patients (0.5% vs. 0.6%, P=0.913), and among those with high VTE risk (1.7% vs. 1.0%, P=0.554). PEI had no association with the probability of VTE event occurrence (RR, 1.246; 95% CI, 0.478-2.188, P=0.954). CONCLUSIONS: Educational intervention effectively increased physician awareness of VTE prophylaxis in the respiratory department. Further interventions are still necessary since the guidelines were implemented to a relatively low degree.
Entities:
Keywords:
Venous thromboembolism (VTE); education intervention; medical inpatients; respiratory; thromboprophylaxis