...
【24h】

Provider preferences for DVT prophylaxis.

机译:提供者对DVT预防的偏好。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Patients admitted to medicine wards are typically elderly with multiple co-morbidities, placing them at significant risk for venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease. Standard guidelines to help physicians assess risk and institute prophylaxis do not currently exist for this patient population. Our purpose was to assess how clinicians would rate a patient's risk for VTE and what recommendations they would make for prophylaxis. METHODS: Internal medicine residents and staff at a tertiary care medical center were asked to identify risk factors, evaluate VTE risk, and recommend a method of prophylaxis for patients described in eight clinical vignettes created by the authors. Each vignette was designed to represent a patient at a specific level of risk. RESULTS: 35 physicians returned the survey. Responders were able to identify some risk factors and weigh them appropriately when assigning an overall risk level. There was good agreement on risk level among responders (k=0.62) and moderate agreement comparing responders with our pre-defined gold standard (GS) (k=0.42). Compared to the GS they underestimated the level of risk almost 50% of the time. The risk level they assigned affected the type of prophylaxis recommended, with fewer low risk patients receiving any type of heparin and more high risk patients receiving low-molecular weight heparin (LMWH). CONCLUSIONS: Although internal medicine physicians are able to identify some risk factors for in-hospital VTE, they consistently underestimate the overall risk, leading to less aggressive preventative measures. Continuing education is essential to combating this preventable inpatient complication.
机译:背景:收治病房的患者通常是患有多种合并症的老年人,使他们处于静脉血栓栓塞性(VTE)疾病的重大风险中。当前没有针对该患者人群的帮助医师评估风险和进行预防的标准指南。我们的目的是评估临床医生如何评估患者的VTE风险,以及他们对预防的建议。方法:要求三级医疗中心的内科住院医师和医务人员识别危险因素,评估VTE风险,并为作者创建的八个临床短片中描述的患者推荐预防方法。每个小插图都旨在代表处于特定风险级别的患者。结果:35位医师返回了调查。分配总体风险水平时,响应者能够识别一些风险因素并适当权衡它们。响应者之间的风险水平有很好的一致性(k = 0.62),而将响应者与我们预先定义的金标准(GS)进行比较则有中等的一致性(k = 0.42)。与GS相比,他们低估了大约50%的风险水平。他们指定的风险水平会影响建议的预防类型,接受任何类型肝素的低风险患者较少,而接受低分子量肝素(LMWH)的高风险患者则更多。结论:尽管内科医师能够识别出院内VTE的某些危险因素,但他们始终低估了总体风险,从而导致预防措施的积极性降低。继续教育对于对抗这种可预防的住院并发症至关重要。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号