ArticleAnnals of surgery2020
Multi-institution Evaluation of Adherence to Comprehensive Postoperative VTE Chemoprophylaxis.
Article in Annals of surgery, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multimodal quality improvement project on reducing hospital perioperative thromboembolic events (Patient Safety Indicator-12).BMJ open quality · 2025Article
- A Mixed-Methods Evaluation of a Collaborative-Wide Quality Improvement Project to Improve Postdischarge Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis After Abdominopelvic Cancer Surgery.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2025Article
- A Call to Action for Anticoagulation Stewardship to Address Suboptimal Thromboprophylaxis Practices for at-Risk Non-Orthopedic Surgical Patients in Vietnam: An Explanatory Sequential Mixed-Methods Study.Vascular health and risk management · 2025Article
- Comparison of pain after prophylactic anticoagulant injections to prevent venous thromboembolism.Surgery open science · 2024Article
- Venous Thromboembolism Chemoprophylaxis Adherence Rates After Major Cancer Surgery.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Development of the Illinois Surgical Quality Improvement Collaborative (ISQIC): Implementing 21 Components to Catalyze Statewide Improvement in Surgical Care.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2023Article
- Natural language processing for the surveillance of postoperative venous thromboembolism.Surgery · 2021Article
- Post-discharge venous thromboembolism after pancreatectomy for malignancy: Predicting risk based on preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors.Journal of surgical oncology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this study were to: (1) measure the rate of failure to provide defect-free postoperative venous thromboembolism (VTE) chemoprophylaxis, (2) identify reasons for failure to provide defect-free VTE chemoprophylaxis, and (3) examine patient- and hospital-level factors associated with failure. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Current VTE quality measures are inadequate. VTE outcome measures are invalidated for interhospital comparison by surveillance bias. VTE process measures (e.g., SCIP-VTE-2) do not comprehensively capture failures throughout patients' entire hospitalization.
methodsWe examined adherence to a novel VTE chemoprophylaxis process measure in patients who underwent colectomies over 18 months at 36 hospitals in a statewide surgical collaborative. This measure assessed comprehensive VTE chemoprophylaxis during each patient's entire hospitalization, including reasons why chemoprophylaxis was not given. Associations of patient and hospital characteristics with measure failure were examined.
resultsThe SCIP-VTE-2 hospital-level quality measure identified failures of VTE chemoprophylaxis in 0% to 3% of patients. Conversely, the novel measure unmasked failure to provide defect-free chemoprophylaxis in 18% (736/4086) of colectomies. Reasons for failure included medication not ordered (30.4%), patient refusal (30.3%), incorrect dosage/frequency (8.2%), and patient off-unit (3.4%). Patients were less likely to fail the chemoprophylaxis process measure if treated at nonsafety net hospitals (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.39-0.99, P = 0.045) or Magnet designated hospitals (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.29-0.71, P = 0.001).
conclusionsIn contrast to SCIP-VTE-2, our novel quality measure unmasked VTE chemoprophylaxis failures in 18% of colectomies. Most failures were due to patient refusals or ordering errors. Hospitals should focus improvement efforts on ensuring patients receive VTE prophylaxis throughout their entire hospitalization.
Indexed as
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.