ArticleBMC health services research2025
VTE risk assessment and management in admitted patients at a private hospital in Dubai- A quality improvement project.
Article in BMC health services research, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlobally, an estimated 10 million VTE episodes are diagnosed each year; over half of these episodes are associated with hospital inpatient stays and result in significant loss of disability-adjusted life years. According to NICE guidelines, all patients should undergo an initial risk assessment, followed by a reassessment 24 h later. Non-compliance with VTE risk assessment and management can cause extended length of stay, heightened morbidity, and increased mortality rates amongst the admitted patients. This study aims to determine the current VTE practices to reduce hospital-acquired thrombosis and standardize the practice of VTE management through a quality improvement project.
methodsA retrospective chart review was conducted to see the compliance of the VTE risk assessment and management of VTE in patients admitted to the King’s College Hospital London, Dubai. All adult male and female patients admitted to the hospital between August 2022 and March 2023 were included. A purposive sampling technique was used to collect the data. A total of 734 patients were included in the study. Mean and SD were calculated for the quantitative variables, and frequency and percentages were calculated for the categorical variables. Bar graphs were developed to visually display the data.
resultsThe mean ± SD age was 46.15 ± 15.81 years. Of the 734 patients, the majority were medical patients. All patients underwent VTE risk assessment, and for almost all it was completed within 24 h (n = 733, 99.86%). Nearly half of the patients were at high risk of VTE (n = 299, 40.74%). One-third of the patients, 28.88% (n = 212), were prescribed pharmacological prophylaxis. No patient-acquired thrombosis in the hospital (0.0%). No VTE prophylaxis was initiated for mobilized high-risk VTE patients, 3.13% (n = 23). Average length of stay was 2 days (IQR: 1–5) in patients who didn’t receive the prophylaxis (p = 0.001). None of the patients had bleeding who received pharmacological prophylaxis. No hospital acquired thrombosis in any medical or surgical patients.
conclusionThis study demonstrates a significant improvement in VTE risk assessment compliance in patients. This study also identified the appropriate prophylaxis prescribed and given to patients either pharmacological, mechanical or both. However, the study identified gaps in practices of prophylaxis in patients who are at high risk of bleeding and are mobilized. Continuous education and training of healthcare providers are crucial to ensure appropriate prophylaxis is administered to high-risk patients.
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.