Optimization of Thromboprophylaxis Use in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients Through Implementation of a Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Tool

Airka Sanchez, Lauren Campanella, Kimberly Perez
{"title":"Optimization of Thromboprophylaxis Use in Hospitalized Pediatric Patients Through Implementation of a Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Tool","authors":"Airka Sanchez, Lauren Campanella, Kimberly Perez","doi":"10.5863/1551-6776-28.5.452","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVE Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of hospital-acquired morbidity for pediatric patients. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis increases the risk of adverse events such as bleeding complications. There exists a need for a universal VTE risk assessment tool to aid in thromboprophylaxis prescribing while minimizing the risk of adverse events. The objective of this study is to investigate if implementation of a VTE risk assessment tool is associated with a change in the rate of thromboprophylaxis prescribing. METHODS This retrospective study evaluated the change in thromboprophylaxis prescribing pre and post implementation of a VTE risk assessment tool. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, diagnosed with VTE ≤48 hours of admission, presented with VTE symptoms, or if they were diagnosed with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or coronavirus disease (COVID-19). RESULTS A total of 186 pediatric patients were included in this study. Thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 16/93 (17.12%) and 75/93 (80.6%) patients in the pre- and post-implementation group, respectively (95% CI, 0.523–0.745; p < 0.001). No VTE events occurred in either group. Bleeding complications occurred in 3.2% and 7.5% of patients in the pre- and post-implementation groups, respectively. The risk tool was used in 80.6% of patients; providers used the tool correctly in 48% of patients and incorrectly in 52% of patients. CONCLUSION Implementation of a VTE risk assessment tool was associated with a statistically significant change in the rate of thromboprophylaxis prescribing. Incorrect use may be minimized by providing provider reeducation and making modifications to the order set.","PeriodicalId":22794,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Journal of Pediatric Pharmacology and Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5863/1551-6776-28.5.452","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

OBJECTIVE Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of hospital-acquired morbidity for pediatric patients. Pharmacological thromboprophylaxis increases the risk of adverse events such as bleeding complications. There exists a need for a universal VTE risk assessment tool to aid in thromboprophylaxis prescribing while minimizing the risk of adverse events. The objective of this study is to investigate if implementation of a VTE risk assessment tool is associated with a change in the rate of thromboprophylaxis prescribing. METHODS This retrospective study evaluated the change in thromboprophylaxis prescribing pre and post implementation of a VTE risk assessment tool. Patients were excluded if they were pregnant, diagnosed with VTE ≤48 hours of admission, presented with VTE symptoms, or if they were diagnosed with multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) or coronavirus disease (COVID-19). RESULTS A total of 186 pediatric patients were included in this study. Thromboprophylaxis was prescribed in 16/93 (17.12%) and 75/93 (80.6%) patients in the pre- and post-implementation group, respectively (95% CI, 0.523–0.745; p < 0.001). No VTE events occurred in either group. Bleeding complications occurred in 3.2% and 7.5% of patients in the pre- and post-implementation groups, respectively. The risk tool was used in 80.6% of patients; providers used the tool correctly in 48% of patients and incorrectly in 52% of patients. CONCLUSION Implementation of a VTE risk assessment tool was associated with a statistically significant change in the rate of thromboprophylaxis prescribing. Incorrect use may be minimized by providing provider reeducation and making modifications to the order set.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
通过实施静脉血栓栓塞风险评估工具优化住院儿科患者血栓预防使用
目的:静脉血栓栓塞(VTE)是儿科患者院内获得性发病的主要原因。药物血栓预防增加了诸如出血并发症等不良事件的风险。目前需要一个通用的静脉血栓栓塞风险评估工具,以帮助血栓预防处方,同时尽量减少不良事件的风险。本研究的目的是调查静脉血栓栓塞风险评估工具的实施是否与血栓预防处方率的变化有关。方法:本回顾性研究评估静脉血栓栓塞风险评估工具实施前后血栓预防处方的变化。排除孕妇、入院≤48小时诊断为静脉血栓栓塞、出现静脉血栓栓塞症状、诊断为儿童多系统炎症综合征(MIS-C)或冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的患者。结果本研究共纳入186例患儿。实施前组和实施后组分别有16/93(17.12%)和75/93(80.6%)患者开了血栓预防处方(95% CI, 0.523-0.745;p, lt;0.001)。两组均未发生静脉血栓栓塞事件。实施前组和实施后组分别有3.2%和7.5%的患者出现出血并发症。80.6%的患者使用了风险工具;48%的患者正确使用了该工具,52%的患者错误使用了该工具。结论静脉血栓栓塞风险评估工具的实施与血栓预防处方率的统计学显著变化相关。通过提供提供者再教育和对订单集进行修改,可以最大限度地减少错误使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Effect of Elexacaftor/Tezacaftor/Ivacaftor on Pseudomonas aeruginosa Acquisition and Chronic Infection at a Single Pediatric Cystic Fibrosis Care Center The Precompetitive Space for Drug or Vaccine Development: What Does It Look Like Now and What Could It Look Like in the Future? Ethanol Lock for Prevention of CVC-Related Bloodstream Infection in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Effect of Phytonadione on Correction of Coagulopathy in Pediatric Patients With Septic Shock Comparison of Outcomes in Neonates Receiving Cefepime or Ceftazidime
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1