4.7 Article

Thromboprophylaxis in a Pediatric Hospital: A Patient-Safety and Quality-Improvement Initiative

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 127, 期 5, 页码 E1326-E1332

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2010-3282

关键词

adolescent; anticoagulation; prophylaxis; thrombosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis for patients at risk is often overlooked in pediatric health care institutions, which provides an opportunity to improve patient care. The objectives of this study were to review our current hospital practice, identify a population at high risk, and formulate institutional guidelines for thromboprophylaxis. METHODS: This was a prospective patient-safety and quality-improvement project performed at a large pediatric tertiary care hospital. We developed criteria for assessing risk and selecting prophylactic intervention through analysis of the age distribution and underlying medical conditions of patients with VTE at our center, literature review of adult recommendations for thromboprophylaxis, and consensus opinion of multiple specialists at our institution. A patient-care policy was developed to assess VTE risk and prescribe the appropriate thromboprophylaxis regimen. The primary outcome measure was compliance with thromboprophylaxis guidelines in patients at risk for VTE. RESULTS: Over the 4-year study period, the observed rate of VTE prophylaxis in patients at risk increased from a baseline of 22% to an average rate of 82%, and there were intermittent improvements up to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Although some of the details may vary from center to center, many of the discussed principles and practices involved in instituting a VTE-prevention program are applicable to other pediatric institutions. Despite the fact that the risk of VTE in hospitalized children is much lower than that in adults, there are patients in pediatric hospitals who deserve systematic screening and thoughtful application of preventative measures. Pediatrics 2011;127:e1326-e1332

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据