Educational Outreach Visits to Improve Venous Thromboembolism Prevention

<table align="left" border="0" cellpadding="1" cellspacing="1" height="118" width="437">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td>
Primary Author:</td>
<td>
Jed Duff, RN, PhD</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Co-Principal Investigators/Collaborators:</td>
<td>
Kim Walker, BN, PhD, Abdullah Omari, MBBS, PhD</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
Organization:</td>
<td>
St. Vincent's Private Hospital Sydney</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<h2 class="block">
 </h2>
<h2 class="block">
 </h2>
<h2 class="block">
 </h2>
<h2 class="block">
Abstract</h2>
<h3>
Purpose</h3>
<p>To evaluate the acceptability, utility, and clinical impact of an Educational Outreach Visit (EOV) on the provision of venous thromboembolism (VTE )prophylaxis to hospitalized medical patients.</p>
<h3>
Background</h3>
<p>Despite the availability of evidence-based guidelines on venous thromboembolism  prevention clinical audit and research reveals that hospitalized medical patients frequently receive suboptimal prophylaxis.</p>
<h3>
Materials & Methods</h3>
<p>Participants received a one-to-one EOV on VTE prevention from a trained peer (doctor or nurse) facilitator. The acceptability of the intervention to participants was measured with a post intervention survey; descriptive data on resource use was collected as a measure of utility; and clinical impact (prophylaxis rate) was assessed by pre and post intervention clinical audits.</p>
<h3>
Results</h3>
<p>85 nurses (71%) and 19 doctors (73%) received an EOV. The median length of each visit was 11.5 min (IQR 10-15) for nurses and 15 min (IQR 15-20) for doctors. The total time spent arranging and conducting each visit was 63 minutes (IQR 49-85) for nurses and 92 min (IQR 78-129) for doctors. 97.4% (n=84) of nurses and 85% (n=16) of doctors surveyed post intervention felt that the EOV was effective or extremely effective and 84 (98.8%) nurses and 15 (78%) doctors gave a verbal commitment to trial the new evidence-based practices. There was no measurable improvement in the proportion of patients provided appropriate mechanical prophylaxis (-0.3% improvement, 95% CI -13.4 to 14, p=0.96) but there was a significant improvement in the proportion of patients receiving appropriate pharmacological prophylaxis following the intervention (16% improvement, 95% CI 5 to 26, p=0.004).</p>
<h3>
Conclusion</h3>
<p>EOV is resource intensive but it is one of the few interventions that has been consistently shown to influence doctors prescribing practices. The cost of the intervention must therefore be weighed against the potential benefits it can achieve.</p>
<p> </p>
<h3>
Bibliography</h3>
<ul>
<li>
Duff, J., Omari, A., Middleton, S., McInnes, E., & Walker, K. (2013). Educational outreach visits to improve venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalised medical patients: a prospective before-and-after intervention study. BMC Health Services Research, 13(1), 398.</li>
<li>
Duff, J., Walker, K., Omari, A., Middleton, S., & McInnes, E. (2013). Educational outreach visits to improve nurses’ use of mechanical venous thromboembolism prevention in hospitalized medical patients. J Vasc Nurs, 31(4), 139-149.</li>
<li>
Duff, J., Walker, K., Omari, A., & Stratton, C. (2013). Prevention of venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients: analysis of reduced cost and improved clinical outcomes. J Vasc Nurs, 31(1), 9-14. doi: 10.1016/j.jvn.2012.06.006</li>
<li>
Duff, J., Walker, K., & Omari, A. (2011). Translating Venous Thromboembolism (VTE) Prevention Evidence into Practice: A Multidisciplinary Evidence Implementation Project. Worldviews on Evidence-based Nursing, 30-39. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2010.00209.x</li>
<li>
Li, F., Walker, K., McInnes, E., & Duff, J. (2010). Testing the effect of a targeted intervention on nurses' compliance with "best practice" mechanical venous thromboembolism prevention. Journal of Vascular Nursing, 28(3), 92-96.</li>
</ul>
<p>© Improvement Science Research Network, 2012</p>
<p>The ISRN published this as received and with permission from the author(s).</p>