ArticleBMJ quality improvement reports2014
A persuasive intervention: improving the compliance of extended venous thromboembolism prophylaxis following cancer resections in a tertiary colorectal and hepatobiliary unit.
Article in BMJ quality improvement reports, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Practice patterns of VTE chemoprophylaxis after discharge following hepatic and pancreatic resections for cancer: A survey of hepatopancreatobiliary surgeons.Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extended venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis has been shown to reduce the incidence of VTE in patients following cancer resections.[1] However, ensuring patients are discharged with the prescription remains a challenge, with junior doctors frequently rotating throughout different specialties. We conducted an audit to assess the compliance rate in the colorectal and hepatobiliary (HPB) unit at the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham. Extended VTE prophylaxis was considered compliant to the guideline if it was prescribed on discharge. The baseline measurement demonstrated compliance rates of 79% and 48% in the colorectal and HPB units respectively. Following discussion with the stakeholders, several interventions that include education and visual reminders were implemented to increase awareness of the importance of extended VTE prophylaxis among junior doctors. Results of the re-audit have shown a remarkable improvement; compliance rates were increased to 93% and 72% in the colorectal and HPB units respectively. We conclude that visual reminder is a simple yet effective tool to improve awareness among junior doctors on the importance of extended VTE prophylaxis in cancer patients. Nevertheless, education remains crucial to ensure the sustainability of any intervention.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.