venous thromboembolism (vte) prevention in the hospital
DESCRIPTION
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prevention in the Hospital. Greg Maynard MD, MSc Clinical Professor of Medicine and Chief, Division of Hospital Medicine University of California, San Diego. VTE: A Major Source of Mortality and Morbidity. 350,000 to 650,000 with VTE per year - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prevention in the Hospital
Greg Maynard MD, MScClinical Professor of Medicine and Chief,
Division of Hospital MedicineUniversity of California, San Diego
VTE: A Major Source of Mortality and Morbidity
• 350,000 to 650,000 with VTE per year• 100,000 to > 200,000 deaths per year • Most are hospital related. • VTE is primary cause of fatality in half-
– More than HIV, MVAs, Breast CA combined– Equals 1 jumbo jet crash / day
• 10% of hospital deaths– May be the #1 preventable cause
• Huge costs and morbidity (recurrence, post-thrombotic syndrome, chronic PAH)
Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Prevent DVT and PE 2008 DHHS
Risk Factors for VTE
StasisAge > 40ImmobilityCHFStrokeParalysisSpinal Cord injuryHyperviscosityPolycythemiaSevere COPDAnesthesiaObesityVaricose Veins
Hypercoagulability CancerHigh estrogen statesInflammatory BowelNephrotic SyndromeSepsisSmokingPregnancyThrombophilia
Endothelial Endothelial DamageDamageSurgerySurgeryPrior VTEPrior VTECentral linesCentral linesTraumaTrauma
Anderson FA Jr. & Wheeler HB. Anderson FA Jr. & Wheeler HB. Clin Chest MedClin Chest Med 1995;16:235. 1995;16:235.
Risk Factors for VTE
StasisAge > 40ImmobilityCHFStrokeParalysisSpinal Cord injuryHyperviscosityPolycythemiaSevere COPDAnesthesiaObesityVaricose Veins
Hypercoagulability CancerHigh estrogen statesInflammatory BowelNephrotic SyndromeSepsisSmokingPregnancyThrombophilia
Endothelial Endothelial DamageDamageSurgerySurgeryPrior VTEPrior VTECentral linesCentral linesTraumaTrauma
Anderson FA Jr. & Wheeler HB. Anderson FA Jr. & Wheeler HB. Clin Chest MedClin Chest Med 1995;16:235. 1995;16:235. Bick RL & Kaplan H. Bick RL & Kaplan H. Med Clin North AmMed Clin North Am 1998;82:409. 1998;82:409.
Most hospitalized patients have
at least one ris
k factor for V
TE
Failure to Do Simple Things Well
• Wash Hands – 60% Reliable
• Patients Understand Meds / Problems– 40% Reliable
• Central Lines Placed w/ Proper Technique– 60% Reliable
• Basal Insulin for Inpt Uncontrolled DM– 40% Reliable
• VTE Prophylaxis– 50% Reliable
Registry DataHighlight the Underuse of
ThromboprophylaxisDVT-FREE RIETE IMPROVE
BAD NEWS!Only a minority of hospitalized patients receive thromboprophylaxis
Goldhaber SZ, Tapson VF. Am J Cardiol 2004;93:259-62.Monreal M, et al. J Thromb Haemost 2004;2:1892-8.Tapson V, et al. Blood 2004;104:11. Abstract #1762.
Endorse Results
• Out of ~70,000 patients in 358 hospitals, appropriate prophylaxis was administered in:– 58.5% of surgical patients– 39.5% of medical patients
Cohen, Tapson, Bergmann, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a
multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet 2008; 371: 387–94.
The “Stick” is coming….
NQF endorses measures already
Public reporting and TJC measures coming soon:- Prophylaxis in place within 24 hours of admit or risk
assessment / contraindication justifying it’s absence- Same for critical care unit admit / transfers- Track preventable VTE
CMS – DVT or PE with knee or hip replacement reimbursed as though complication had not occurred.
Why don’t we do better?
• Lack of awareness or buy in of guidelines
• Underestimation of clot risk, overestimation of bleeding risk
• Lack of validated risk assessment model
• Translating complicated guidelines into everyday practice is difficult
E-Alerts Can Increase Prophylaxis
• 2506 hospitalized patients• VTE risk score ≥ 4• Randomized to intervention or control
InterventionTreatment Received
Mechanical, % Pharmacologic, %
E-Alert 10 23.6
Control 1.5 13
P-value 0.001 0.001
Kucher N, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:969-977.
Intervention
Control
Time (days)
0 30 60 90
% F
reed
om
fro
m D
VT
/ PE
90
92
94
96
98
100
E-Alerts Decrease VTE
Kucher N, et al. N Engl J Med. 2005;352:969-977.
Intervention
Control
Number at risk
1255 977 900
1251 976 893 839
853
41%P = 0.001
Effectiveness can wane over time
Lecumberri R, et al. Thromb Haemost. 2008;100:699-704.
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
44.5
Overall MedicalPatients
SurgicalPatients
VT
E I
nci
den
ce/1
000
Pat
ien
ts
2005 (pre-intervention)
2006
2007
*P < 0.05
*
Human Alerts Increase Prophylaxis
• 2493 hospitalized patients• VTE risk score ≥ 4• Randomized to intervention or control
InterventionTreatment Received
Mechanical, % Pharmacologic, %
Hu-Alert 21 28
Control 8 14
95% CI 10.6-16.0 10.5-16.8
Piazza G, et al. Circulation. 2009;119:2196-2201.
% F
reed
om
fro
m D
VT
/ P
E
Human Alerts Decrease VTE
Time After Initial Enrollment (days)
P = 0.31
Piazza G, et al. Circulation. 2009;119:2196-2201.
Bottom Line - Alerts
• A Useful Strategy
• E – Alerts and Human Alerts can work
• Not a panacea
• Alert fatigue can be a problem
• Need a multifaceted approach
Medical Admission Order Sets Can Improve DVT Prophylaxis………
Baseline- Only 11% of inpatients on any VTE prophylaxis
Intervention – A simple prompt for UFH or Mechanical
Prophylaxis placed into voluntary admission order sets.
Post intervention:44% on any prophylaxis26% pharmacologic prophylaxis
O'Connor C, Adhikari N, DeCaire K, Friedrich Jan. Medical Admission Order Sets to Improve Deep Vein Thrombosis Prophylaxis Rates and Other Outcomes. J Hosp Med 2009
…but not enough by themselves, and design of the order set matters
• Best practice prophylaxis not defined Prompt ≠ Protocol
• No protocol = No guidance at the point of carein order set, heparin, mechanical devices, and no
prophylaxis presented as equal choices
• Implementation / ReliabilityAt 15 months, only about half of inpatient
admissions utilized standardized order set.
Other methods needed to enhance performance!
Education alone is not sufficient
….but it is essential to optimize other strategies that are effective
• Standardized order sets• Computerized decision support• E-alerts• Human alerts• Raising situational awareness• Audit and feedback
19
Percent of Randomly Sampled Inpatients with Adequate VTE Prophylaxis
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline
Consensus building
Order Set Implementation & Adjustment
Real time ID & intervention
Percent of Randomly Sampled Inpatients with Adequate VTE Prophylaxis
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Baseline
Consensus building
Order Set Implementation & Adjustment
Real time ID & intervention
N = 2,944 mean 82 audits / month UCSD experience
UCSD VTE Protocol Validated
• Easy to use, on direct observation – a few seconds• Inter-observer agreement –
– 150 patients, 5 observers- Kappa 0.8 and 0.9
• Predictive of VTE • Implementation = high levels of VTE prophylaxis
– From 50% to sustained 98% adequate prophylaxis– Rates determined by over 2,900 random sample audits
• Safe – no discernible increase in HIT or bleeding• Effective – 40% reduction in HA VTE
– 86% reduction in risk of preventable VTE
UCSD - Decrease in Patients with Preventable HA VTE
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Q 1 '0
5
Q2 '05
Q3 '05
Q4 '05
Q1'06
Q2 '06
Q3 '06
Q4 '06
Q1 '07
Quarter
# o
f P
ati
en
ts
Medicine
Surgery
Ortho
Other
Total
21
Level 5 Oversights identified and addressed in real timeOversights identified and addressed in real time 95+%
Dr.
May
nard
, th
e C
Is a
re d
iffer
ent
here
and
in
the
pro
of.
Whi
ch a
re c
orre
ct?
Maynard GA, et al. J Hosp Med. 2009;
Hospital Acquired VTE by Year2005 2006 2007
Patients at Risk 9,720 9,923 11,207
Cases w/ any VTE 131 138 92Risk for HA VTE 1 in 76 1 in 73 1 in 122Unadjusted RR 1.0 1.03 0.61#
(95% CI) (0.81-1.31) (0.47- 0.79)
Cases with PE 21 22 15Risk for PE 1 in 463 1 in 451 1 in 747
Unadjusted RR 1.0 1.02 0.62 (95% CI) (0.54-1.86) (0.32-1.20)
Cases with DVT (and no PE) 110 116 77Risk for DVT 1 in 88 1 in 85 1 in 146
Unadjusted RR 1.0 1.03 0.61* (95% CI) (0.80-1.33) (0.45-0.81)
Cases w/ Preventable VTE 44 21 7Risk for Preventable VTE 1 in 221 1 in 473 1 in 1,601
Unadjusted RR 1.0 0.47# 0.14*(95% CI) (0.28-0.79) (0.06-0.31)
# p < 0.01 *p < 0.001
2008
80
12
68
6
VTE Prevention Guides Modeling a Multifaceted Approach
http://ahrq.hhs.gov/qual/vtguide/
http://www.hospitalmedicine.org/ResourceRoomRedesign/RR_VTE/VTE_Home.cfm
VTE QI Resource Room www.hospitalmedicine.org
Collaborative Efforts
• SHM VTE Prevention Collaborative I - 25 sites• SHM / VA Pilot Group - 6 sites• SHM / Cerner Pilot Group – 6 sites• AHRQ / QIO (NY, IL, IA) - 60 sites• IHI Expedition for VTE Prevention – 60 sites
• Effective across wide variety of settings– Paper and Computerized / Electronic – Small and large institutions– Academic and community
Basic Ingredients for Success
• Institutional support, will to standardize the process
• Designated multidisciplinary team with physician leadership
• Specific goals and metrics• VTE Protocol guidance built into order sets• Education / consensus• Alerts / feedback to clinicians in real time
Enlist Key Groups / Leaders
• Section Heads
• Hospitalists – (most groups receive some direct support
from the hospital)
• Other high volume providers
• Find some more physician champions
Educational Detailing - PR
Quote ACCP 8 Guidelines
Don’t use aspirin alone for DVT prophylaxis
Mechanical prophylaxis is not first line prophylaxis in the absence of contraindications to pharmacologic prophylaxis
Geerts WH et al. Chest. 2008;133(6 Suppl):381S-453S
Use the powerful anecdote and data
• Look for VTE case that could have been prevented
• Personalize the story• Enlist a patient / family to help you tell the
story• Get data on VTE in your medical center
– (it occurs more often than the doctors think it does)
Q and A
Q. What is the best VTE risk assessment model?
A. Simple, text based model with only 2-3 layers of VTE Risk
Q. Who should do the VTE risk assessment?
A. Doctors (via admit transfer order sets), with back up risk assessment by front line nurses or pharmacists, focusing on those without prophylaxis.
Hierarchy of Reliability
No protocol* (“State of Nature”)
Decision support exists but not linked to order writing, or prompts within orders but no decision support
Protocol well-integrated
(into orders at point-of-care)
Protocol enhancedProtocol enhanced
(by other QI / high reliability strategies)(by other QI / high reliability strategies)
Oversights identified and addressed in Oversights identified and addressed in real timereal time
Level
4
1
2
3
5
Predicted
Prophylaxis rate
40%
50%
65-85%
90%
95+%
* Protocol = standardized decision support, nested within an order set, i.e. what/when
The Essential First Intervention
1) a standardized VTE risk assessment, linked to…2) a menu of appropriate prophylaxis options, plus…3) a list of contraindications to pharmacologic VTE
prophylaxis
Challenges: Make it easy to use (“automatic”)
Make sure it captures almost all patientsTrade-off between guidance and ease of use /
efficiency 32
VTE Protocol
Map to Reach Level 3Implementing an Effective VTE Prevention
Protocol• Examine existing admit, transfer, periop order
sets with reference to VTE prophylaxis.• Design a protocol-driven DVT prophylaxis order
set (w/ integrated risk assessment model [RAM])• Vette / Pilot – PDSA• Educate / consensus building• Place new standardized DVT order set ‘module’
into all pertinent admit, transfer, periop order sets.
• Monitor, tweak - PDSA
34
Is your order set in a competition?
Too Little GuidancePrompt ≠ Protocol
DVT PROPHYLAXIS ORDERS
Anti thromboembolism Stockings Sequential Compression Devices UFH 5000 units SubQ q 12 hours UFH 5000 units SubQ q 8 hours LMWH (Enoxaparin) 40 mg SubQ q day LMWH (Enoxaparin) 30 mg SubQ q 12 hours No Prophylaxis, Ambulate
No Math!Critiques of VTE Risk Assessment
Model using point scoring techniques
• Point based systems -– low inter-observer agreement in real use– users stop adding up points– too large to be modular (collects dust)– point scoring is arbitrary– never validated
Low Medium HighAmbulatory with no other risk factors. Same day or minor surgery
CHF
COPD / Pneumonia
Most Medical Patients
Most Gen Surg Patients
Everybody Else
Elective LE arthroplasty
Hip/pelvic fx
Acute SCI w/ paresis
Multiple major trauma
Abd / pelvic CA surgery
Early ambulation
UFH 5000 units q 8 h (5000 units q 12 h if > 75 or weight <50 kg)
LMWH Enox 40 mg q day
Other LMWH
CONSIDER add IPC
Enox 30 mg q 12 h or
Enox 40 q day or
Other LMWH or
Fondaparinux 2.5 mg q day or
Warfarin INR 2-3
AND MUST HAVE
IPC 37
IPC needed if contraindication to AC exists
Example from UCSD Keep it Simple – A “3 bucket” model
Paper Version – “3 Bucket” RAM DVT Prophylaxis Order Set
Module
See separate paper version demonstrating 3 bucket model
Integrate order set as a module
• Make order set even more portable
• Incorporate module into current heavily used order sets
Or
Strip out VTE orders from popular order sets and refer to the standardized orders
Clip orders to all admit / transfer orders
Most Common Mistakes in VTE Prevention Orders
• Point based risk assessment model
• Improper Balance of guidance / ease of use– Too little guidance - prompt ≠ protocol
– Too much guidance- collects dust, too long
• Failure to revise old order sets
• Too many categories of risk
• Allowing non-pharm prophy too much
• Failure to pilot, revise, monitor
• Linkage between risk level and prophy choices are separated in time or space
Hierarchy of Reliability
No protocol* (“State of Nature”)
Decision support exists but not linked to order writing, or prompts within orders but no decision support
Protocol well-integrated
(into orders at point-of-care)
Protocol enhancedProtocol enhanced
(by other QI / high reliability strategies)(by other QI / high reliability strategies)
Oversights identified and addressed in Oversights identified and addressed in real timereal time
Level
4
1
2
3
5
Predicted
Prophylaxis rate
40%
50%
65-85%
90%
95+%
* Protocol = standardized decision support, nested within an order set, i.e. what/when
Daily measurement drives concurrent intervention
(i.e. same as Level 5 in Hierarchy of Reliability)
Identify patients not receiving VTE prophylaxis in real time
1) Suitable for ongoing assessment, reporting to governing body
Archive-able data (!)
2) Can be used for real time interventionActionable data (!)
42
Measure-vention
Map to Reach Level 595+ % prophylaxis
• Use MAR or Automated Reports to Classify all patients on the Unit as being in one of three zones:
GREEN ZONE - on anticoagulationYELLOW ZONE - on mechanical
prophylaxis only RED ZONE – on no prophylaxis
Act to move patients out of the RED!
Situational Awareness and Measure-vention: Getting to
Level 5• Identify patients on no anticoagulation• Empower nurses to place SCDs in
patients on no prophylaxis as standing order (if no contraindications)
• Contact MD if no anticoagulant in place and no obvious contraindication– Templated note, text page, etc
• Need Administration to back up these interventions and make it clear that docs can not “shoot the messenger”
45
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86
Pre
vale
nce o
f V
TE
Pro
ph
yla
xis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101
Pre
vale
nce o
f V
TE
Pro
ph
yla
xis
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 6 11 16 21 26 31 36 41 46 51 56 61 66 71 76 81 86 91 96 101
Pre
vale
nce o
f V
TE
Pro
ph
yla
xis
Effect of Situational Awareness on Prevalence of VTE Prophylaxis by
Nursing Unit
Hospital A, 1st Nursing Unit Baseline Post-Intervention
UCL: 93% 104%Mean: 73% 99% (p < 0.01)LCL: 53% 93%
Hospital A, 2nd Nursing Unit Baseline Post-Intervention
UCL: 90% 102%Mean: 68% 87% (p <
0.01)LCL: 46% 72%
Hospital B, 1st Nursing Unit Baseline Post-Intervention
UCL: 89% 108%Mean: 71% 98% (p <
0.01)LCL: 53% 88%______________________________________________UCL = Upper Control Limit UCL = Upper Control Limit LCL = Lower Control LimitLCL = Lower Control Limit
Hospital Days
Intervention
Intervention
Intervention
Most Common Mistakes in Measurement of DVT
Prophylaxis
• Not doing it at all
• Not doing it concurrently
• Failure to make measured poor performance actionable
Key Points - Recommendations
• QI building blocks should be used• Multifaceted approach is needed• VTE protocols embedded in order sets• Simple risk stratification schema, based on VTE-
risk groups (3 levels of risk should do it)• Institution-wide if possible (a few carve outs ok)• Local modification is OK
– Details in gray areas not that important
• Use measure-vention to accelerate improvement
47
Maynard G, Morris T, Jenkins I, Stone S, Lee J, Renvall M, Fink E, Schoenhaus R (2009) Optimizing prevention of hospital acquired venous thromboembolism: prospective validation of a VTE risk assessment model. J Hosp Med 4(7). doi:10.1002/jhm.562
Maynard G, Stein J. Preventing Hospital-Acquired Venous Thromboembolism: A Guide for Effective Quality Improvement. Prepared by the Society of Hospital Medicine. AHRQ Publication No. 08-0075. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. August 2008, last accessed September 15, 2008 at http://www.ahrq.gov/qual/vtguide/.
Maynard G, Stein J. Preventing Hospital-Acquired Venous Thromboembolism: A Guide for Effective Quality Improvement, version 3.3. Society of Hospital Medicine supplement The Hospitalist August 2008, Vol 12 (8) 1-40.
Maynard G, Stein J. Designing and Implementing Effective VTE Prevention Protocols: Lessons from Collaboratives. J Thromb Thrombolysis DOI 10.1007/s11239-009-0405-4 published online Nov 10, 2009