Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24671361›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2014

Impact of electronic reminders on venous thromboprophylaxis after admissions and transfers.

P E Beeler, E Eschmann, A Schumacher, J-D Studt, B Amann-Vesti, J Blaser

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Evaluating and Improving Knowledge of DVT Prophylaxis Among Healthcare Professionals at a Tertiary Care Hospital in Karachi, Pakistan: A Quality Improvement Study.Clinical and applied thrombosis/hemostasis : official journal of the International Academy of Clinical and Applied Thrombosis/Hemostasis
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

P E BeelerResearch Center for Medical Informatics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
E EschmannResearch Center for Medical Informatics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
A SchumacherDivision of Angiology, Cantonal Hospital Schaffhausen, Schaffhausen, Switzerland.
J-D StudtDivision of Hematology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
B Amann-VestiDivision of Angiology, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
J BlaserResearch Center for Medical Informatics, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveClinical decision support has the potential to improve prevention of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The purpose of this prospective study was to analyze the effect of electronic reminders on thromboprophylaxis rates in wards to which patients were admitted and transferred. The latter was of particular interest since patient handoffs are considered to be critical safety issues.

methodsThe trial involved two study periods in the six departments of a university hospital, three of which were randomly assigned to the intervention group displaying reminders during the second period. At 6 h after admission or transfer, the algorithm checked for prophylaxis orders within 0-30 h of the patient's arrival, increasing the specificity of the displayed reminders.

resultsThe significant impact of the reminders could be seen by prophylaxis orders placed 6-24 h after admission (increasing from 8.6% (223/2579) to 12% (307/2555); p<0.0001) and transfer (increasing from 2.4% (39/1616) to 3.7% (63/1682); p=0.034). In admission wards, the rate of thromboprophylaxis increased from 62.4% to 67.7% (p<0.0001), and in transfer wards it increased from 80.2% to 84.3% (p=0.0022). Overall, the rate of prophylaxis significantly increased in the intervention group from 69.2% to 74.3% (p<0.0001). No significant changes were observed in the control group. Postponing prophylaxis checks to 6 h after admissions and transfers reduced the number of reminders by 62% and thereby minimized the risk of alert fatigue.

conclusionsThe reminders improved awareness of VTE prevention in both admission and transfer wards. This approach may contribute to better quality of care and safer patient handoffs.

Indexed as

Medical Order Entry SystemsPatient HandoffAlgorithmsAnticoagulantsHospitals, UniversityHumansPatient AdmissionProspective StudiesReminder SystemsVenous ThromboembolismAnticoagulantsClinicalDecision Support SystemsPatient HandoffPatient TransferReminder SystemsVenous Thromboembolism

Identifiers

PMID24671361
PMCPMC4173166

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.