Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for hospitalized adult patients: a survey of US health care providers on attitudes and practices

Link to article at PubMed

Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2023 Aug 7;7(6):102168. doi: 10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102168. eCollection 2023 Aug.


BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a leading cause of preventable mortality among hospitalized patients, but appropriate risk assessment and thromboprophylaxis remain underutilized or misapplied.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted an electronic survey of US health care providers to explore attitudes, practices, and barriers related to thromboprophylaxis in adult hospitalized patients and at discharge.

RESULTS: A total of 607 US respondents completed the survey: 63.1% reported working in an academic hospital, 70.7% identified as physicians, and hospital medicine was the most frequent specialty (52.1%). The majority of respondents agreed that VTE prophylaxis is important (98.8%; 95% CI: 97.6%-99.5%) and that current measures are safe (92.6%; 95% CI: 90.2%-94.5%) and effective (93.8%; 95% CI: 91.6%-95.6%), but only half (52.0%; 95% CI: 47.9%-56.0%) believed that hospitalized patients at their institution are on appropriate VTE prophylaxis almost all the time. One-third (35.4%) reported using a risk assessment model (RAM) to determine VTE prophylaxis need; 44.9% reported unfamiliarity with RAMs. The most common recommendation for improving rates of appropriate thromboprophylaxis was to leverage technology. A majority of respondents (84.5%) do not reassess a patient's need for VTE prophylaxis at discharge, and a minority educates patients about the risk (16.2%) or symptoms (18.9%) of VTE at discharge.

CONCLUSION: Despite guideline recommendations to use RAMs, the majority of providers in our survey do not use them. A majority of respondents believed that technology could help improve VTE prophylaxis rates. A majority of respondents do not reassess the risk of VTE at discharge or educate patients about this risk of VTE at discharge.

PMID:37767063 | PMC:PMC10520566 | DOI:10.1016/j.rpth.2023.102168

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *