Is guideline-driven prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism common practice in the South African private hospital setting?
South African Family Practice
| Field | Value | |
| Title | Is guideline-driven prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism common practice in the South African private hospital setting? | |
| Creator | van der Merwe, Melissa Julyan, Marlene du Plessis, Jesslee M. | |
| Description | Background: Prophylactic venous thromboembolism (VTE) strategies have the greatest impact on patient outcomes. Both global and local guidelines support VTE prophylaxis for hospitalised patients. However, studies have reported that these measures are routinely under-prescribed. This study evaluated prescribing patterns of VTE prophylaxis in one of the largest South African (SA) private hospital groups.Methods: A quantitative, retrospective analysis of the hospital group’s patient database was conducted for patients admitted between 01 September 2015 and 31 August 2016. Those younger than 18 years with trauma or suffering from contraindications to anticoagulation were excluded. Additionally, patients with warfarin billed were also excluded as they possibly required therapeutic anticoagulation. Included prophylactic measures were compared with published SA guidelines by abstracting prophylaxis type and dosing, according to corresponding individual patients’ VTE risk ratings.Results: Amongst the 373 020 patients included as the study population, 77% required prophylaxis. Of these, 38.36% (n = 85 486) received guideline-appropriate prophylactic measures during their hospital stay. Patients in whom prophylaxis was indicated, only 24.56% (n = 42 715) complied with the SA guidelines. The most commonly used prophylactic measures were enoxaparin (89.09%) and fondaparinux (2.68%). Prophylactic measures differed per speciality, with the most compliant amongst intensivists. A low uptake of the risk assessment model use (n = 222 860, 59.75%) was, however, reported for this data set.Conclusion: Less than 24.56% of patients who required prophylaxis received guideline-appropriate interventions. Further studies should focus on understanding differences in practice and improving acceptance and application of guideline-driven care. | |
| Publisher | AOSIS | |
| Date | 2020-10-12 | |
| Identifier | 10.4102/safp.v62i1.5022 | |
| Source | South African Family Practice; Vol 62, No 1 (2020): Part 4; 9 pages 2078-6204 2078-6190 | |
| Language | eng | |
| Relation |
The following web links (URLs) may trigger a file download or direct you to an alternative webpage to gain access to a publication file format of the published article:
https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5022/6374
https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5022/6373
https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5022/6375
https://safpj.co.za/index.php/safpj/article/view/5022/6372
|
|
ADVERTISEMENT
