MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3205554718 · doi:10.1136/bmjoq-2021-001583

Comparison of strategies for adherence to venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in high-risk surgical patients: a before and after intervention study

2021· article· en· W3205554718 on OpenAlexaff
Leopoldo Muniz da Silva, Helidea de Oliveira Lima, Ricardo Ferrer, Anthony M.‐H. Ho, Saullo Queiroz Silveira, Arthur de Campos Vieira Abib, Fernando Nardy Bellicieri, Daenis Camiré, Otto Mittermayer, Karen Kato Botelho, Andre Mortari Pla Gil, Glenio B. Mizubuti

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open Quality · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVenous thromboembolismIntervention (counseling)Intensive care medicineInternal medicineNursingThrombosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a major cause of perioperative morbimortality. Despite significant efforts to advance evidence-based practice, prevention rates remain inadequate in many centres. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies aimed at improving adherence to adequate VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients at high risk of VTE. METHOD: Before and after intervention study conducted at a tertiary hospital. Adherence to adequate VTE prophylaxis was compared according to three strategies consecutively implemented from January 2019 to December 2020. A dedicated hospitalist physician alone (strategy A) or in conjunction with a nurse (strategy B) overlooked the postoperative period to ensure adherence and correct inadequacies. Finally, a multidisciplinary team approach (strategy C) focused on promoting adequate VTE prophylaxis across multiple stages of care-from the operating room (ie, preoperative team-based checklist) to collaboration with clinical pharmacists in the postoperative period-was implemented. RESULTS: We analysed 2074 surgical patients: 783 from January to June 2019 (strategy A), 669 from July 2019 to May 2020 (strategy B), and 622 from June to December 2020 (strategy C). VTE prophylaxis adherence rates for strategies (A), (B) and (C) were (median (25th-75th percentile)) 43.29% (31.82-51.69), 50% (42.57-55.80) and 92.31% (91.38-93.51), respectively (p<0.001; C>A=B). There was a significant reduction in non-compliance on all analysed criteria (risk stratification (A (25.5%), B (22%), C (6%)), medical documentation (A (68%), B (55.2%) C (9%)) and medical prescription (A (51.85%), B (48%), C (6.10%)) after implementation of strategy C (p<0.05). Additionally, a significant increase in compliance with adequate dosage, dosing interval and scheduling of the prophylactic regimen was observed. CONCLUSION: Perioperative VTE prophylaxis strategies that relied exclusively on physicians and/or nurses were associated with suboptimal execution and prevention. A multidisciplinary team-based approach that covers multiple stages of patient care significantly increased adherence to adequate VTE prophylaxis in surgical patients at high risk of developing perioperative VTE.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.382 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Open QualitySame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207