Cargando…
Variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence
BACKGROUND: Risk assessment models (RAMs) may allow the clinician to determine need for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis. Individual healthcare facilities often develop their own RAMs. The purpose of this study was to determine: 1.) inter-RAM variability in DVT risk factors and contraindicatio...
Autor principal: | |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing AG
2012
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581767/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23450705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-1-60 |
_version_ | 1782260511665029120 |
---|---|
author | Vyas, Deepti |
author_facet | Vyas, Deepti |
author_sort | Vyas, Deepti |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Risk assessment models (RAMs) may allow the clinician to determine need for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis. Individual healthcare facilities often develop their own RAMs. The purpose of this study was to determine: 1.) inter-RAM variability in DVT risk factors and contraindications; 2.) inter-rater variability and inter-RAM variability when applying a RAM to a standard case; and 3.) inter-rater and inter-RAM variability in outcome as far as type of prophylaxis. A convenience sample of RAMs was obtained from various institutions and ten reviewers were recruited to apply the RAMs to three patient cases. FINDING: The review resulted in 390 separate assessments. Patient 1 did not receive any chemoprophylaxis in 67% of the evaluations, patient 2 in 27% of the evaluations and patient 3 in 2.3% of the evaluations. There was statistically significant variation in the provision of chemoprophylaxis per RAM for patient 1 (p=0.001) and no significant variation for patients 2 and 3. When analyzing the rate of chemoprophylaxis per reviewer, there was statistically significant variation for patients 1 and 2 (p=0.026 and <0.0001 respectively) but not for patient 3 (p=0.123). CONCLUSION: There may be significant inter-RAM and inter-reviewer variability when utilizing RAMs for assessing DVT risk. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3581767 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2012 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing AG |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-35817672013-02-26 Variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence Vyas, Deepti Springerplus Short Report BACKGROUND: Risk assessment models (RAMs) may allow the clinician to determine need for deep vein thrombosis (DVT) prophylaxis. Individual healthcare facilities often develop their own RAMs. The purpose of this study was to determine: 1.) inter-RAM variability in DVT risk factors and contraindications; 2.) inter-rater variability and inter-RAM variability when applying a RAM to a standard case; and 3.) inter-rater and inter-RAM variability in outcome as far as type of prophylaxis. A convenience sample of RAMs was obtained from various institutions and ten reviewers were recruited to apply the RAMs to three patient cases. FINDING: The review resulted in 390 separate assessments. Patient 1 did not receive any chemoprophylaxis in 67% of the evaluations, patient 2 in 27% of the evaluations and patient 3 in 2.3% of the evaluations. There was statistically significant variation in the provision of chemoprophylaxis per RAM for patient 1 (p=0.001) and no significant variation for patients 2 and 3. When analyzing the rate of chemoprophylaxis per reviewer, there was statistically significant variation for patients 1 and 2 (p=0.026 and <0.0001 respectively) but not for patient 3 (p=0.123). CONCLUSION: There may be significant inter-RAM and inter-reviewer variability when utilizing RAMs for assessing DVT risk. Springer International Publishing AG 2012-12-11 /pmc/articles/PMC3581767/ /pubmed/23450705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-1-60 Text en © Vyas; licensee Springer. 2012 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Short Report Vyas, Deepti Variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence |
title | Variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence |
title_full | Variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence |
title_fullStr | Variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence |
title_full_unstemmed | Variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence |
title_short | Variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence |
title_sort | variations in risk assessment models may contribute to the existing gap between venous thromboembolism prophylaxis guidelines and adherence |
topic | Short Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3581767/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23450705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-1-60 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT vyasdeepti variationsinriskassessmentmodelsmaycontributetotheexistinggapbetweenvenousthromboembolismprophylaxisguidelinesandadherence |