Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39280881›Full record

ArticleLancet regional health. Americas2024

Venous thromboembolism prevention program implementation in a community oncology practice: a cohort study.

Steven Ades, Yonatan Resnick, Jacob Barker, Karlyn Martin, Ryan Thomas, Karen Libby, John Winters, Chris Holmes

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lancet regional health. Americas, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Implementation failure: thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory patients with cancer.Hematology. American Society of Hematology. Education Program · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Time to move beyond risk assessment models for ambulatory cancer-associated thrombosis.Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Steven AdesUniversity of Vermont Cancer Center, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
Yonatan ResnickNew England Cancer Specialists, 100 Campus Dr Unit 108, Scarborough, ME 04074, USA.
Jacob BarkerUniversity of Vermont Medical Center, 111 Colchester Ave, Burlington, VT 05401, USA.
Karlyn MartinUniversity of Vermont Cancer Center, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
Ryan ThomasUniversity of Vermont Cancer Center, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
Karen LibbyUniversity of Vermont Medical Center, 111 Colchester Ave, Burlington, VT 05401, USA.
John WintersNew England Cancer Specialists, 100 Campus Dr Unit 108, Scarborough, ME 04074, USA.
Chris HolmesUniversity of Vermont Cancer Center, 89 Beaumont Ave, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: While national guidelines recommend Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessment in cancer outpatients and consideration of pharmacologic prophylaxis in high-risk patients, prophylaxis rates are low in community oncology practices. A successful model for guideline implementation (the Vermont Model, VM) is validated in an academic tertiary oncology setting. We undertook an implementation study to determine the success of this model in a multi-site community oncology practice. The study objectives were to: 1) adapt the VM to the community practice setting; 2) implement the adapted VM into practice; and 3) evaluate clinical and implementation outcomes. Methods: The study was carried out in three phases: (1) Pre-implementation, a multidisciplinary team addressed the need to adapt the VM to the local context including electronic medical record (EMR) optimisation and clinician education; (2) implementation of the strategies adapted to the local context, informed by VM and adapted based on stakeholder feedback; (3) prospective evaluation of clinical and implementation outcomes at six months after implementation. Findings: Following creation of a comprehensive initiation roadmap for the adaptation of VM program to the community practice, 302 cancer outpatients initiating new treatment met inclusion criteria over a 6 month implementation period. VTE risk education was provided to 100% of patients, and 98% (296) of patients received a VTE risk assessment. Of 52 patients (18%) who scored as high risk based on a modified Khorana (Protecht) score, 14 (27%) initiated prophylaxis. Barriers to program adaptation included EMR optimization challenges and practice-level responsibility assignment, time constraints, concern about potential drug interactions, and financial & insurance issues. Interpretation: Implementation of a multidisciplinary VTE prevention model in the community-based oncology setting successfully increased VTE education and risk assessment rates. AC prophylaxis rates were modestly increased, highlighting the need to understand and address barriers to anticoagulant prophylaxis prescribing in this setting. Funding: Northern New England Clinical Oncology Society Research Funding Program.

Indexed as

Ambulatory cancer careCommunity oncologyGuideline implementationVenous thromboembolism prophylaxis

Identifiers

PMID39280881
PMCPMC11402208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.