Back to Search Start Over

Effect of Real-time Patient-Centered Education Bundle on Administration of Venous Thromboembolism Prevention in Hospitalized Patients

Authors :
Deborah B. Hobson
Peggy S. Kraus
Elizabeth A. Sugar
Jiangxia Wang
Peter J. Pronovost
Oluwafemi P. Owodunni
Brandyn D. Lau
Elliott R. Haut
Norma E. Farrow
Gayane Yenokyan
Kristen L. W. Webster
Joseph K. Canner
Michael B. Streiff
Christine G. Holzmueller
Katherine L. Florecki
Jonathan Aboagye
Dauryne L. Shaffer
Source :
JAMA Network Open
Publication Year :
2018
Publisher :
American Medical Association, 2018.

Abstract

Key Points Question Can a real-time, targeted, patient-centered education bundle reduce nonadministration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in hospitalized patients? Findings In this controlled preintervention-postintervention comparison trial of 19 652 adult patients on medical and surgical units, nonadministration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis significantly declined on units that received an intervention that combined an alert to a health educator about a missed dose of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis with patient education compared with control units. Meaning Timely, targeted education significantly reduces nonadministration of VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients and improves health care quality by leveraging real-time data to target interventions for at-risk patients.<br />This pre-post intervention comparison study evaluates a real-time patient-centered education bundle intervention aimed to reduce nonadministration of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis among hospitalized patients in surgical and medical units.<br />Importance Numerous interventions have improved prescription of venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis; however, many prescribed doses are not administered to hospitalized patients, primarily owing to patient refusal. Objective To evaluate a real-time, targeted, patient-centered education bundle intervention to reduce nonadministration of VTE prophylaxis. Design, Setting, and Participants This nonrandomized controlled, preintervention-postintervention comparison trial included 19 652 patient visits on 16 units at The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Baltimore, Maryland, from April 1 through December 31, 2015. Data analysis was performed from June 1, 2016, through November 30, 2017, on an intention-to-treat basis. Interventions Patients on 4 intervention units received a patient-centered education bundle if a dose of VTE prophylaxis medication was not administered. Patients on 12 control units received no intervention. Main Outcomes and Measures Conditional odds of nonadministration of doses of VTE prophylaxis (primary outcome) before and after the intervention on control vs intervention units. Reasons for nonadministration (ie, patient refusal and other) and VTE event rates (secondary outcomes) were compared. Results A total of 19 652 patient visits where at least 1 dose of VTE prophylaxis was prescribed were included (51.7% men; mean [SD] age, 55.6 [17.1] years). Preintervention and postintervention groups were relatively similar in age, sex, race, and medical or surgery unit. From the preintervention period to the postintervention period, on intervention units, the conditional odds of VTE prophylaxis nonadministration declined significantly (9.1% [95% CI, 5.2%-16.2%] vs 5.6% [95% CI, 3.1%-9.9%]; odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% CI, 0.48-0.67) compared with no change on control units (13.6% [95% CI, 9.8%-18.7%] vs 13.3% [95% CI, 9.6%-18.5%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.91-1.07; P < .001 for interaction). The conditional odds of nonadministration owing to patient refusal decreased significantly on intervention units (5.9% [95% CI, 2.6%-13.6%] vs 3.4% [95% CI, 1.5%-7.8%]; OR, 0.53; 95% CI ,0.43-0.65) compared with no change on control units (8.7% [95% CI, 5.4%-14.0%] vs 8.5% [95% CI, 5.3%-13.8%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.89-1.08; P < .001 for interaction). On intervention units, the conditional odds of nonadministration owing to reasons other than patient refusal decreased (2.3% [95% CI, 1.5%-3.4%] vs 1.7% [95% CI, 1.1%-2.6%]; OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.58-0.94), with no change on control units (3.4% [95% CI, 2.7%-4.4%] vs 3.3% [95% CI, 2.6%-4.2%]; OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.87-1.10; P = .04 for interaction). No differential effect occurred on medical vs surgical units (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.60-1.23; P = .41 for interaction). There was no statistical difference in the proportion of VTE events among patients on intervention vs control units (0.30% vs 0.18%; OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.16-2.23). Conclusions and Relevance In this study, a targeted patient-centered education bundle significantly reduced nonadministration of pharmacologic VTE prophylaxis in hospitalized patients. This novel strategy improves health care quality by leveraging electronic data to target interventions in real time for at-risk patients. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02402881

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
25743805
Volume :
1
Issue :
7
Database :
OpenAIRE
Journal :
JAMA Network Open
Accession number :
edsair.doi.dedup.....9930a449388d7b8c7006603c1728bc33