4.0 Article

Impact of the national venous thromboembolism risk assessment tool in secondary care in England: retrospective population-based database study

期刊

BLOOD COAGULATION & FIBRINOLYSIS
卷 25, 期 6, 页码 571-576

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MBC.0000000000000100

关键词

deep vein thrombosis; prophylaxis; pulmonary embolism; risk assessment; venous thromboembolism

资金

  1. Sanofi, UK
  2. Sanofi

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a common and important cause of death in hospital patients. We therefore investigated possible associations between the introduction of the compulsory national VTE risk assessment tool in England in 2010 and patient outcomes. A retrospective database study, using data from the Health and Social Care Information Centre and Office of National Statistics, was undertaken. The main outcome measures were VTE-related secondary diagnosis rates, 30-day and 90-day readmission rates and mortality rates. The observed mean VTE-related secondary diagnosis rate for 2011-2012 was 91% of the rate estimated from a linear regression model of the data for 2006-2007 to 2010-2011 (P = 0.001). Similarly, the observed mean 30-day VTE-related readmission rate for 2011 was 96% of the estimated rate (P = 0.067) and the observed mean 90-day VTE-related readmission rate for 2011 was 96% of the estimated rate (P = 0.022). The observed annual VTE-related national mortality rate was 91% of the estimated rate for 2011 and 92% of the estimated rate for 2012. This study shows a reduction in VTE-related secondary diagnoses and readmissions among adults admitted to hospital, and a reduction in VTE-related population mortality, since the introduction of a national VTE risk assessment screening tool in England. Despite some study limitations, this suggests that the concerted effort made by NHS England to improve prevention of hospital-acquired VTE has been successful. (C) 2014 Wolters Kluwer Health | Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

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

4.0
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