Alert-Triggered Patient Education Versus Nurse Feedback for Nonadministered Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Doses: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial

Elliott R. Haut, Oluwafemi P. Owodunni, Jiangxia Wang, Dauryne L. Shaffer, Deborah B. Hobson, Gayane Yenokyan, Peggy S. Kraus, Norma E. Farrow, Joseph K. Canner, Katherine L. Florecki, Kristen L.W. Webster, Christine G. Holzmueller, Jonathan K. Aboagye, Victor O. Popoola, Mujan Varasteh Kia, Peter J. Pronovost, Michael B. Streiff, Brandyn D. Lau

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Many hospitalized patients are not administered prescribed doses of pharmacologic venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. METHODS AND RESULTS: In this cluster-randomized controlled trial, all adult non–intensive care units (10 medical, 6 surgical) in 1 ac-ademic hospital were randomized to either a real-time, electronic alert–triggered, patient-centered education bundle intervention or nurse feedback intervention to evaluate their effectiveness for reducing nonadministration of venous thromboembolism proph-ylaxis. Primary outcome was the proportion of nonadministered doses of prescribed pharmacologic prophylaxis. Secondary outcomes were proportions of nonadministered doses stratified by nonadministration reasons (patient refusal, other). To test our primary hypothesis that both interventions would reduce nonadministration, we compared outcomes pre-versus postintervention within each cohort. Secondary hypotheses were tested comparing the effectiveness between cohorts. Of 11 098 patient visits, overall dose nonadministration declined significantly after the interventions (13.4% versus 9.2%; odds ratio [OR], 0.64 [95% CI, 0.57–0.71]). Nonadministration decreased significantly (P<0.001) in both arms: patient-centered education bundle, 12.2% versus 7.4% (OR, 0.56 [95% CI, 0.48–0.66]), and nurse feedback, 14.7% versus 11.2% (OR, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.62–0.84]). Patient refusal decreased significantly in both arms: patient-centered education bundle, 7.3% versus 3.7% (OR, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.37–0.58]), and nurse feedback, 9.5% versus 7.1% (OR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59–0.86]). No differential effect occurred on medical versus surgical units. The patient-centered education bundle was significantly more effective in reducing all nonadministered (P=0.03) and refused doses (P=0.003) compared with nurse feedback (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.0–1.61]; P=0.03 for interaction). CONCLUSIONS: Information technology strategies like the alert-triggered, targeted patient-centered education bundle, and nurse-focused audit and feedback can improve venous thromboembolism prophylaxis administration. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03367364.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numbere027119
JournalJournal of the American Heart Association
Volume11
Issue number18
DOIs
StatePublished - Sep 20 2022

Keywords

  • deep vein thrombosis
  • patient-centered care
  • prophylaxis
  • pulmonary embolism
  • randomized trial
  • venous thromboembolism

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Alert-Triggered Patient Education Versus Nurse Feedback for Nonadministered Venous Thromboembolism Prophylaxis Doses: A Cluster-Randomized Controlled Trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this