Evaluating compliance of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following abdominopelvic surgery for cancer: A multidisciplinary quality improvement project
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Despite quality evidence supporting postoperative extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis (eVTEp) following abdominopelvic cancer surgery, baseline use of eVTEp at our institution was 3%. Our project aim was to improve the proportion of patients prescribed eVTEp following surgery for gynecologic, hepatobiliary, and colorectal cancers by a 30% absolute increase. METHODS: We performed an interrupted time series study using quality improvement methodology. Postoperative order sets, pre-printed prescriptions, process checklists, and multimodal education were introduced. Process and outcome data were collected and analyzed on statistical process control charts. RESULTS: We included 324 patients with gynecologic and hepatobiliary cancers. Despite efforts to include them, the colorectal team did not participate. The monthly mean order set-use was 58% (SD = 14%), by specialty: gynecology 79%, hepatobiliary 47%. The proportion of patients prescribed eVTEp increased from 3% to 70% (SD = 14%). The target goal was surpassed and sustained by both cohorts. Patient compliance was 73% (n = 117/160, SD = 16%). Of those who stopped eVTEp early, 45% (n = 14/31) objected because of the injectable nature. Bleeding events were infrequent (0.6%, n = 2/324). CONCLUSIONS: Three process changes and multimodal education resulted in a significant increase in eVTEp use. Failure to identify improvement champions limited project expansion to colorectal patients. Patient compliance was largely limited by the injectable nature of the medication.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".