JRSM > Volume 98, Number 11 > Pp. 507-512

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Send a Quick Comment Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Quick Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Rashid, S T Articles by Shlebak, A A Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Venous thromboprophylaxis in UK medical inpatients

S T Rashid¹ M R Thursz² N A Razvi³ R Voller⁴ T Orchard² S T Rashid⁵   A A Shlebak²

¹ Department of Medicine, St James University Hospital NHS trust, Beckett Street, Leeds LS9 7TF;² Department of Medicine, St Mary’s NHS Trust Hospitals, Praed Street, London W2 INY; ³ Department of Medicine, University Hospital Wales, Heath Park, Cardiff CF14, Wales;⁴ Leeds University Medical School, Leeds LS2 9JT;⁵ Yorkshire Deanery, Leeds LS2 9JT, UK

Correspondence to: Dr Abdul Shlebak FRCPathE-mail: a.shlebak{at}imperial.ac.uk

We prospectively assessed the implementation of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis guidelines and the impact of grand round presentation of the datain changing clinical practice. Two NHS teaching hospitals were studied for 24 months from January 2003. Patients were risk stratified according to the THRIFT (thromboembolic risk factor) consensus group guidelines and compared with the recommendations of the THRIFT and ACCP (American College of Chest Physicians) consensus groups. Six months following presentation of the initial results, a further analysis was made to assess changes in clinical practice.

1128 patients were assessed of whom 1062 satisfied the inclusion criteria for thromboprophylaxis. 89% of all patients were stratified as having high or moderate riskof developing VTE. Of these only 28% were prescribed some form of thromboprophylaxis—4% received the THRIFT-recommended and 22% received the ACCP-recommended thromboprophylaxis. The vast majority (72%) received no thromboprophylaxis at all. Reassessment, following data presentation at grandrounds, showed a significant increase to 31% inpatients receiving THRIFT (P<0.0001) and ACCP (P=0.002) recommended thromboprophylaxis. However,the proportion of patients receiving no form of prophylaxis barely changed (72% to 69%: P=0.59).

We found a gross underutilization of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients. A simple grand-round presentation of the data and recommended guidelines to clinicians significantly increased the proportion of patients receiving recommended thromboprophylaxis but did not increasethe overall proportion of patients receiving it. Wetherefore conclude that a single presentation of guidelines is not enough to achieve the desired levels. Such presentations may only serve to make DVT (deepvenous thromboembolism) aware clinicians prescribe prophylaxis more accurately.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?