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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Vyas, Deepti
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