Venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients: An updated analysis of missed opportunities for thromboprophylaxis at a university-affiliated tertiary care center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thromboprophylaxis remains often underused in hospitalized patients. In 2001, a cohort study done at our institution, a tertiary care center in Montreal, Canada, showed that 67.7% of VTE cases necessitating thromboprophylaxis were potentially preventable with adequate use of American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) guidelines. Following implementation of an institution-wide policy in 2005, we assessed the changes in the rate of potentially preventable VTE. We conducted a retrospective cohort study including all hospitalized patients with objectively diagnosed VTE in 2010 at our institution. Each case was classified as preventable (thromboprophylaxis indicated but inadequately administered), non-preventable (thromboprophylaxis indicated and correctly administered), spontaneous (thromboprophylaxis not indicated), and ineligible (contraindication to thromboprophylaxis). The results were compared to those obtained in 2001. Of the 230 cases of VTE, 55 cases were classified as potentially preventable (23.9%), 85 were non-preventable (37.0%), 74 were spontaneous (32.2%) and 16 (7.0%) were ineligible. Of the 140 cases requiring thromboprophylaxis, 39.3% were potentially preventable. The potentially preventable cases were mostly due to omission of thromboprophylaxis (50.9%), occurred during general medical admissions (74.5%), and the most common VTE risk factor was cancer (47.2%). In conclusion, we demonstrate a lower frequency of potentially preventable cases in 2010 compared to 2001 (39.3% vs 67.7%, respectively), partially due to physician education and adoption of an institution-wide policy. However, patients with medical indications for thromboprophylaxis, particularly those with cancer, are more prone to having preventable VTE, indicating an area for potential improvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".