Show simple item record

dc.contributor.advisorKatz, Michaelen
dc.contributor.authorBaggs, Jenniferen
dc.contributor.authorChang, Graceen
dc.contributor.authorLi, Jinwenen
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-06T18:25:09Z
dc.date.available2017-06-06T18:25:09Z
dc.date.issued2009
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10150/623985
dc.descriptionClass of 2009 Abstracten
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: To assess whether patients at University Medical Center (UMC) in Arizona who have indications for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis receive treatment, determine whether appropriate pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is implemented, and analyze the incidence of VTE associated with prescribed regimens. METHODS: Data were derived from a retrospective chart review on risk factors for VTE and prescription of pharmacological and non-pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. Two risk assessment models were used to evaluate adherence to treatment standards: the 2008 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidence-based consensus guidelines and the Caprini score. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with regard to proper thromboprophylaxis including assessment of appropriate time, type, intensity, and duration of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients met inclusion critera. Based on the Caprini score, 94% of patients were judged to be at risk for VTE. Of those at risk, 90% received thromboprophylaxis; however, only 35% of treated patients received proper thromboprophylaxis. Ten patients (2.7%) experienced a VTE during their hospital stay or within the following 6 months after discharge. There was not a significant difference in incidence of VTE with respect to treatment versus no treatment or proper versus improper prophylaxis (p=0.15 and 0.65, respectively); however, a favorable trend in incidence of VTE was observed for treated patients and patients treated with correct thromboprophylaxis based on risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients at UMC who were indicated for VTE prophylaxis received treatment; however, the type, intensity, and duration of thromboprophylaxis were often inappropriate despite the existence of various guidelines.
dc.language.isoen_USen
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author.en
dc.subjectVenous Thromboembolismen
dc.subjectProphylaxisen
dc.subjectHospitalized Patientsen
dc.subject.meshVenous Thromboembolismen
dc.subject.meshInpatientsen
dc.titleEvaluation of Adherence to Treatment Standards and Clinical Outcomes Associated with Prophylaxis of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Patients at University Medical Center in Arizonaen_US
dc.typetexten
dc.typeElectronic Reporten
dc.contributor.departmentCollege of Pharmacy, The University of Arizonaen
dc.description.collectioninformationThis item is part of the Pharmacy Student Research Projects collection, made available by the College of Pharmacy and the University Libraries at the University of Arizona. For more information about items in this collection, please contact Jennifer Martin, Associate Librarian and Clinical Instructor, Pharmacy Practice and Science, jenmartin@email.arizona.edu.en
html.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: To assess whether patients at University Medical Center (UMC) in Arizona who have indications for venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis receive treatment, determine whether appropriate pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis is implemented, and analyze the incidence of VTE associated with prescribed regimens. METHODS: Data were derived from a retrospective chart review on risk factors for VTE and prescription of pharmacological and non-pharmacological thromboprophylaxis. Two risk assessment models were used to evaluate adherence to treatment standards: the 2008 American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP) evidence-based consensus guidelines and the Caprini score. Clinical outcomes were evaluated with regard to proper thromboprophylaxis including assessment of appropriate time, type, intensity, and duration of treatment. RESULTS: A total of 366 patients met inclusion critera. Based on the Caprini score, 94% of patients were judged to be at risk for VTE. Of those at risk, 90% received thromboprophylaxis; however, only 35% of treated patients received proper thromboprophylaxis. Ten patients (2.7%) experienced a VTE during their hospital stay or within the following 6 months after discharge. There was not a significant difference in incidence of VTE with respect to treatment versus no treatment or proper versus improper prophylaxis (p=0.15 and 0.65, respectively); however, a favorable trend in incidence of VTE was observed for treated patients and patients treated with correct thromboprophylaxis based on risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: Most patients at UMC who were indicated for VTE prophylaxis received treatment; however, the type, intensity, and duration of thromboprophylaxis were often inappropriate despite the existence of various guidelines.


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record