A Tertiary Care University Hospital Thrombosis Consultation Service: Patient Volume and Characteristics, Requesting Service and Reason for Consult
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Abstract 4751 Introduction Subspecialist Thrombosis Consultation Services for the emergency department and hospital inpatients are not commonly offered, even in tertiary level care centers in Canada. Since 2006, the Jewish General Hospital, a McGill University teaching hospital in Montreal, Canada, has offered a subspecialist Thrombosis Consultation Service overseen by experienced Thrombosis Physicians. Additionally, a one year clinical Thrombosis Fellowship is offered to train physicians in Thrombosis medicine. In order to assist centers planning to start a subspecialist Thrombosis Consultation Service and to aid in the planning of future Thrombosis Fellowship curricula we performed a retrospective descriptive study of the Thrombosis Consultation Service at the Jewish General Hospital. Methods We reviewed all consultation requests to the Thrombosis Consultation Service at the Jewish General Hospital from July 2010 to June 2011. Copies of the completed written consultation sheets were reviewed in order to extract data on patient characteristics, reason for request, requesting service, and drugs and interventions suggested by the Thrombosis consultant. Results are presented descriptively. Results The total number of written consultation sheets reviewed was 504, corresponding to an average of 42 consults seen per month. Approximately 20 additional consultation sheets could not be retrieved. Most consultations were requested by Surgical services (27.8%, n= 140), the Emergency Department (27.4%, n=138) and Internal Medicine wards (25.0%, n=123). The remaining requests were from Oncology services (6%, n=30), the Intensive Care Unit (4.4%, n=22), Family Medicine (4%, n=20), Obstetrics (2.4%, n=12) and other clinical services (2.2%, n=11). In 1.4% (n=7) the requesting service was not recorded. The baseline characteristics of the patients are shown in Table 1. Forty nine percent (n=248) of the consultations were for assessment of a patient with acute thrombosis as the primary reason for the consultation. The distribution of the site of thrombosis included 33.% (n=83) with pulmonary embolus with or without deep vein thrombosis (DVT), 24.6% (n=61) with lower limb proximal DVT, 14.5% (n=36) with distal DVT, 8.5% (n=21) with unusual site DVT, 8.1% (n=20) with arterial thrombosis, 5.7% (n=14) with upper extremity DVT, 4.8% (n=12) with superficial vein thrombosis and 0.4% (n=1) with extracorporeal thrombosis of a dialyzer machine. Consultations to help manage bleeding associated with oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) accounted for 6% (n=31) of consult requests. Other reasons for consultation included dosing of OAT (6.75%, n=34), anticoagulant bridging therapy (9.7%, n=49) and thromboprophylaxis (4.4%, n=22). Six percent (n=29) of the consultation requests were to exclude Heparin Induced Thrombocytopenia (HIT), of which a total of 4 cases were documented as confirmed HIT (0.8%). Conclusion The Thrombosis Consultation Service at the Jewish General Hospital received more than 500 consultation requests in a one year period between 2010 and 2011. These consultations were requested from a diverse array of clinical disciplines, involved adult patients of varying ages and pertained to both venous and arterial thrombotic disorders. The cases reviewed provided rich teaching material for fellows and resident trainees rounding on the service. Given the large volume of consultations requested, the emerging array of available anticoagulant drugs and the increasing complexity of cases reviewed (e.g. cancer patients, older patients with multiple comorbidities, bridging issues), there appears to be a growing need for specialized thrombosis services and formalized training of thrombosis medicine specialists. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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".