PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · TH Open 2024; 08(03): e317-e328
DOI: 10.1055/s-0044-1790519
Original Article

Impact of Clinical Decision Support with Mandatory versus Voluntary Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment in Hospitalized Patients

Vinita Bahl
1   Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
,
Marc J. Moote
2   Office of Clinical Affairs, University of Michigan Health Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
,
Hsou Mei Hu
3   Section of Plastic Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
,
Darrell A. Campbell Jr
4   Section of Transplant Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding None.
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Venous thromboembolism (VTE) causes significant preventable morbidity and mortality in hospitalized patients. Assessing VTE risk is essential to initiating appropriate prophylaxis and reducing VTE outcomes. Studies show that computerized clinical decision support (CDS) can improve VTE risk assessment (RA), prophylaxis, and outcomes but few examined the effectiveness of specific design features.

From 2008 to 2016, University of Michigan Health implemented CDS for VTE prevention in four stages, which alternated between voluntary and mandatory RA using the 2005 Caprini model and generated inpatient orders for risk-appropriate prophylaxis based on CHEST guidelines. This cross-sectional study evaluated the impact of mandatory versus voluntary RA on VTE prophylaxis and outcomes for adult medical and surgical patients admitted to the health system.

Methods Interrupted time series analysis was conducted to evaluate the trend in smart order set-recommended VTE prophylaxis by CDS stage. Logistic regression with CDS stage as the primary independent variable was used in pairwise comparisons of VTE during hospitalization and within 90 days post-discharge for mandatory versus voluntary RA. Adjusted odd ratios (ORs) were calculated for total, in-hospital, and post-discharge VTE.

Results In this study of 223,405 inpatients over 8 years, smart order set-recommended prophylaxis increased from 65 to 79%; it increased significantly when voluntary RA in Stage 1 became mandatory in Stage 2 (10.59%, p < 0.001) and decreased significantly when it returned to voluntary in Stage 3 (−11.24%, p < 0.001). The rate increased slightly when mandatory RA was reestablished in Stage 4 (0.23%, p = 0.935).

Adjusted ORs for VTE were lower for mandatory RA versus adjacent stages with voluntary RA. The adjusted OR for Stage 2 versus Stage 1 was 14% lower (p < 0.05) and versus Stage 3 was 11% lower (p < 0.05). The adjusted OR for Stage 4 versus Stage 3 was 4% lower (p = 0.60).

These results were driven by changes in in-hospital VTE. By contrast, the incidence of post-discharge VTE increased in each successive stage.

Conclusion Mandatory RA was more effective in improving smart order set-recommended prophylaxis and VTE outcomes, particularly in-hospital VTE. Post-discharge VTE increased despite high adherence to risk-appropriate prophylaxis, indicating that guidelines for extended, post-discharge prophylaxis are needed to further reduce VTE for hospitalized patients.

Keywords

venous thromboembolism - risk factors - prophylaxis - clinical trials - deep vein thrombosis - pulmonary embolism

Disclosures

Dr. Darrell A. Campbell, Jr. declared his participation as Board member of ProMedica in his Conflict-of-Interest disclosure form.


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 06. April 2024

Angenommen: 08. August 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
12. September 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Geerts WH, Bergqvist D, Pineo GF. et al. Prevention of venous thromboembolism: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines (8th Edition). Chest 2008; 133 (06) 381S-453S
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Spencer FA, Lessard D, Emery C, Reed G, Goldberg RJ. Venous thromboembolism in the outpatient setting. Arch Intern Med 2007; 167 (14) 1471-1475
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Amin AN, Varker H, Princic N, Lin J, Thompson S, Johnston S. Duration of venous thromboembolism risk across a continuum in medically ill hospitalized patients. J Hosp Med 2012; 7 (03) 231-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rothberg MB, Lahti M, Pekow PS, Lindenauer PK. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among medical patients at US hospitals. J Gen Intern Med 2010; 25 (06) 489-494
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF. et al; ENDORSE Investigators. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet 2008; 371 (9610) 387-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQM) – QualityNet – CMS. Accessed March 24, 2023 at: https://qualitynet.cms.gov/inpatient/measures/ecqm/measures
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Venous Thromboembolism (Blood Clots). 2023 . Accessed March 24, 2023 at: https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/index.html
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Preventing Hospital-Associated Venous Thromboembolism. A Guide for Effective Quality Improvement. 2016 . Accessed March 24, 2023 at: https://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/vteguide.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 The Surgeon General's call to action to prevent deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism. 2008 . Accessed March 24, 2023 at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44178/
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Henke PK, Kahn SR, Pannucci CJ. et al; American Heart Association Advocacy Coordinating Committee. Call to action to prevent venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients. A policy statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2020; 141 (24) e914-e931
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Maynard G, Stein J. Designing and implementing effective venous thromboembolism prevention protocols: lessons from collaborative efforts. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2010; 29 (02) 159-166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Kucher N, Koo S, Quiroz R. et al. Electronic alerts to prevent venous thromboembolism among hospitalized patients. N Engl J Med 2005; 352 (10) 969-977
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Haut ER, Lau BD, Kraenzlin FS. et al. Improved prophylaxis and decreased rates of preventable harm with the use of a mandatory computerized clinical decision support tool for prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in trauma. Arch Surg 2012; 147 (10) 901-907
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zeidan AM, Streiff MB, Lau BD. et al. Impact of a venous thromboembolism prophylaxis “smart order set”: Improved compliance, fewer events. Am J Hematol 2013; 88 (07) 545-549
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Umscheid CA, Hanish A, Chittams J, Weiner MG, Hecht TEH. Effectiveness of a novel and scalable clinical decision support intervention to improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2012; 12: 92
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Galanter WL, Thambi M, Rosencranz H. et al. Effects of clinical decision support on venous thromboembolism risk assessment, prophylaxis, and prevention at a university teaching hospital. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010; 67 (15) 1265-1273
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kawamoto K, Houlihan CA, Balas EA, Lobach DF. Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success. BMJ 2005; 330 (7494) 765
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Baroletti S, Munz K, Sonis J. et al. Electronic alerts for hospitalized high-VTE risk patients not receiving prophylaxis: a cohort study. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2008; 25 (02) 146-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Spirk D, Stuck AK, Hager A, Engelberger RP, Aujesky D, Kucher N. Electronic alert system for improving appropriate thromboprophylaxis in hospitalized medical patients: a randomized controlled trial. J Thromb Haemost 2017; 15 (11) 2138-2146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 MaCauley MJ, Showalter JW, Beck MJ, Chuang CH. The effect of a provider-enhanced clinical decision support tool for guiding venous thromboembolism pharmacoprophylaxis in low-risk patients. Hosp Pract 2012; 40 (03) 7-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Borab ZM, Lanni MA, Tecce MG, Pannucci CJ, Fischer JP. Use of computerized clinical decision support systems to prevent venous thromboembolism in surgical patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Surg 2017; 152 (07) 638-645
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Janus E, Bassi A, Jackson D, Nandurkar H, Yates M. Thromboprophylaxis use in medical and surgical inpatients and the impact of an electronic risk assessment tool as part of a multi-factorial intervention. A report on behalf of the elVis study investigators. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2011; 32 (03) 279-287
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Adams P, Riggio JM, Thomson L, Brandell-Marino R, Merli G. Clinical decision support systems to improve utilization of thromboprophylaxis: a review of the literature and experience with implementation of a computerized physician order entry program. Hosp Pract 2012; 40 (03) 27-39
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Guyatt GH, Aki EA, Crowther M, Gutterman DD, SchuÜnemann HJ. Antithrombotic therapy and prevention of thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines. Chest 2012; 141: 53S–7-S
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Bahl V, Hu HM, Henke PK, Wakefield TW, Campbell Jr DA, Caprini JA. A validation study of a retrospective venous thromboembolism risk scoring method. Ann Surg 2010; 251 (02) 344-350
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Grant PJ, Greene MT, Chopra V, Bernstein SJ, Hofer TP, Flanders SA. Assessing the Caprini score for risk assessment of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized medical patients. Am J Med 2016; 129 (05) 528-535
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Pannucci CJ, Swistun L, MacDonald JK, Henke PK, Brooke BS. Individualized venous thromboembolism risk stratification using the 2005 Caprini score to identify the benefits and harms of chemoprophylaxis in surgical patients. A meta-analysis. Ann Surg 2017; 265 (06) 1094-1103
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Spyropoulos AC. Upper vs. lower extremity deep vein thrombosis: outcome definitions of venous thromboembolism for clinical predictor rules or risk factor analyses in hospitalized patients. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7 (06) 1041-1042
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Wagner AK, Soumerai SB, Zhang F, Ross-Degnan D. Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. J Clin Pharm Ther 2002; 27 (04) 299-309
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Althouse AD, Below JE, Claggett BL. et al. Recommendations for statistical reporting in cardiovascular medicine. A special report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2021; 144 (04) e70-e91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Powers EM, Shiffman RN, Melnick ER, Hickner A, Sharifi M. Efficacy and unintended consequences of hard-stop alerts in electronic health record systems: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2018; 25 (11) 1556-1566
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Pannucci CJ, Fleming KI. Comparison of face-to-face interaction and the electronic medical record for venous thromboembolism risk stratification using the 2005 Caprini score. J Vasc Surg Venous Lymphat Disord 2018; 6 (03) 304-311
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Kucher N, Puck M, Blaser J, Bucklar G, Eschmann E, Lüscher TF. Physician compliance with advanced electronic alerts for preventing venous thromboembolism among hospitalized medical patients. J Thromb Haemost 2009; 7 (08) 1291-1296
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Wilson S, Chen X, Cronin M. et al. Thrombosis prophylaxis in surgical patients using the Caprini Risk Score. Curr Probl Surg 2022; 59 (11) 101221
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Durieux P, Nizard R, Ravaud P, Mounier N, Lepage E. A clinical decision support system for prevention of venous thromboembolism: effect on physician behavior. JAMA 2000; 283 (21) 2816-2821
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Lau BD, Haut ER. Practices to prevent venous thromboembolism: a brief review. BMJ Qual Saf 2014; 23 (03) 187-195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Lau BD, Haider AH, Streiff MB. et al. Eliminating health care disparities with mandatory clinical decision support: the venous thromboembolism (VTE) example. Med Care 2015; 53 (01) 18-24
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Arcelus JI, Monreal M, Caprini JA. et al; RIETE investigators. Clinical presentation and time-course of postoperative venous thromboembolism: results from the RIETE Registry. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99 (03) 546-551
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Heit JA, Crusan DJ, Ashrani AA, Petterson TM, Bailey KR. Effect of a near-universal hospitalization-based prophylaxis regimen on annual number of venous thromboembolism events in the US. Blood 2017; 130 (02) 109-114
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Flanders SA, Greene MT, Grant P. et al. Hospital performance for pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis and rate of venous thromboembolism : a cohort study. JAMA Intern Med 2014; 174 (10) 1577-1584
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Altom LK, Deierhoi RJ, Grams J. et al. Association between Surgical Care Improvement Program venous thromboembolism measures and postoperative events. Am J Surg 2012; 204 (05) 591-597
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Chang V, Blackwell RH, Markossian T. et al. Discordance between surgical care improvement project adherence and postoperative outcomes: implications for new Joint Commission standards. J Surg Res 2017; 212: 205-213
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Lau BD, Streiff MB, Pronovost PJ, Haut ER. Venous thromboembolism quality measures fail to accurately measure quality. Circulation 2018; 137 (12) 1278-1284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Chan NC, Gross PL, Weitz JI. Addressing the burden of hospital-related venous thromboembolism: the role of extended anticoagulant prophylaxis. J Thromb Haemost 2018; 16 (03) 413-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Amin A, Neuman WR, Lingohr-Smith M, Menges B, Lin J. Influence of the duration of hospital length of stay on frequency of prophylaxis and risk for venous thromboembolism among patients hospitalized for acute medical illnesses in the USA. Drugs Context 2019; 8: 212568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Cohen AT, Spiro TE, Büller HR. et al; MAGELLAN Investigators. Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis in acutely ill medical patients. N Engl J Med 2013; 368 (06) 513-523
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Spyropoulos AC, Ageno W, Albers GW. et al; MARINER Investigators. Rivaroxaban for thromboprophylaxis after hospitalization for medical illness. N Engl J Med 2018; 379 (12) 1118-1127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Cohen AT, Harrington RA, Goldhaber SZ. et al; APEX Investigators. Extended thromboprophylaxis with betrixaban in acutely ill medical patients. N Engl J Med 2016; 375 (06) 534-544
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Barkoudah E, Piazza G, Hecht TEH. et al. Extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in medically ill patients: an NATF anticoagulation action initiative. Am J Med 2020; 133 (Suppl. 01) 1-27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Cassidy MR, Rosenkranz P, McAneny D. Reducing postoperative venous thromboembolism complications with a standardized risk-stratified prophylaxis protocol and mobilization program. J Am Coll Surg 2014; 218 (06) 1095-1104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar