Anticoagulation stewardship in the ambulatory settings of long-term care and rehabilitation - A multi-centric descriptive pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anticoagulants have consistently emerged as the leading cause of adverse drug events in both inpatient and outpatient settings. While literature on anticoagulation stewardship programs (ACSP) exists for hospital settings, there is a paucity of data in long-term care and rehabilitation settings. OBJECTIVE: Assess the feasibility of a pharmacist led ACSP in the ambulatory healthcare settings of long-term care facilities (LTC) and rehabilitation centers (RC). METHODS: We conducted a prospective pilot project in 3 rehabilitation centers and 7 long-term care facilities. Patients were selected over 5 months in 2023. Patient and anticoagulant prescription-related characteristics were collected. The primary feasibility outcome was the proportion of anticoagulant prescription reviews leading to a pharmacist intervention. RESULTS: A total of 411 patients were enrolled. Common indications for anticoagulants were atrial fibrillation (n = 255, 62.0 %), medical thromboprophylaxis (n = 52, 12.7 %) and venous thromboembolism (n = 53, 12.9 %). Direct oral anticoagulants (DOAC) were most frequently prescribed (n = 309, 75.2 %). Of 411 prescription reviews, 93 led to at least one intervention (22.6 %), for a total of 100 interventions. Interventions mainly concerned laboratory ordering (n = 29) and DOAC dose adjustment (n = 24). Baseline anticoagulant characteristics and outcomes varied by healthcare setting. CONCLUSION: Expanding ACSP into outpatient LTC and RC settings is feasible. ACSP should include both therapeutic and thromboprophylactic anticoagulants. Additional research is warranted to evaluate the viability of ongoing ACSP monitoring, and more extensive prospective studies are required to assess clinical outcomes effectively.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".