ArticleCureus2026
A Regional Audit on Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prophylaxis Compliance and Cultural Considerations in Prescribing Porcine-Derived Low-Molecular-Weight Heparins.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHospital-acquired venous thromboembolism (VTE) remains a leading cause of preventable mortality in the NHS. NICE guidelines (NG89) mandate timely risk assessment and prophylaxis, yet practice varies widely. Many low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs), such as tinzaparin, are porcine-derived, posing ethical challenges for patients with specific dietary or religious beliefs.
objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate adherence to NICE NG89 guidelines on VTE prophylaxis across two hospitals, with a particular focus on culturally sensitive prescribing. This audit also assessed clinician awareness of LMWH origins and explored patient preferences around dietary compliance. The impact of targeted interventions was measured across two audit cycles.
methodA prospective two-cycle audit was conducted at two NHS hospitals in North East England, The James Cook University Hospital (JCUH) and University Hospital North Tees (UHNT), between March 2024 and January 2025. Patients with dietary requirements were identified via catering records and surveyed. A doctor questionnaire assessed awareness and counselling practice. Interventions included staff education, posters, prescribing alerts, and community outreach.
resultsCycle one included 76 patients. Cycle two included 61 patients. VTE risk assessment improved by 14% at UHNT; JCUH maintained 100% compliance. However, timely prophylaxis fell in UHNT, with 80% receiving it late. Documentation and discussions regarding VTE and dietary compliance improved but remained suboptimal. Leaflet distribution rose by 10% at JCUH but was absent at UHNT. Notably, 98% (n = 137) of patients prioritised medication aligned with their beliefs, and nearly half would decline porcine-derived prophylaxis even if it prevented serious illness. Clinician questionnaire data showed 64% (n = 50) were unaware that LMWHs are animal-derived, and 94% (n = 50) did not inform patients, citing time pressures and limited knowledge.
conclusionWhile guideline compliance improved following intervention, particularly for risk assessments and documentation, major gaps remain in patient communication and dietary-informed prescribing. Most patients expected transparency and alternatives to porcine-based medications. Future efforts must embed dietary screening into routine prescribing and strengthen shared decision-making through structured education and culturally competent communication strategies.
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.