↓ Skip to main content

Utilization rates of enoxaparin and heparin in deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis after education and electronic order change at a single institution: a quality improvement study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Utilization rates of enoxaparin and heparin in deep venous thrombosis prophylaxis after education and electronic order change at a single institution: a quality improvement study
Published in
Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis, August 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11239-018-1727-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Linda Hoang, Shahidul Islam, Alexander Hindenburg

Abstract

Despite advantages of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), enoxaparin over heparin (UFH) for venous thromboembolism (VTE), a hospital's prescribing trends analysis showed use of each was about equal. In an attempt to increase LMWH over UFH use, electronic medical record (EMR) changes for medical service patients and education via multidisciplinary grand rounds was provided to all services. This was a unique opportunity to study LMWH and UFH use pre and post interventions at our institution. Citrix Pharmacy data was extracted for 3 months pre and post intervention (August 2016-February 2017). Inclusion criteria were age > 18 and LMWH or UFH VTE prophylaxis. Exclusion criteria were one time or duplicate orders and VTE treatment doses. Primary endpoint was hospital services VTE use with focus on medicine service which had both interventions compared to single intervention among all other services. LMWH use increased from 51 to 57.3% (p < 0.001) and UFH use decreased from 49 to 42.7% (p < 0.001) for all services. For medicine service, LMWH use increased 52.5-59.6% (p < 0.001) and UFH use decreased 47.5-40.4% (p < 0.001). For other services, LMWH use increased 48.8-53.6% (p = 0.005) and UFH use decreased 51.2-46.4% (p = 0.005). EMR changes and prescribers' grand rounds education resulted in 7.1% increase of LMWH use for medicine and 4.8% increase for all other services. The net increase (95% CI) in LMWH use in medicine service is 2.3% (- 1.91%, 6.56%) compared to the other services p = 0.281. Future studies are needed to reassess the effects of continued education and outcome of interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 2 11%
Student > Bachelor 2 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Professor 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 7 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 22%
Unspecified 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Unknown 9 50%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 August 2018.
All research outputs
#17,987,988
of 23,100,534 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#735
of 994 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,834
of 334,082 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis
#15
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,100,534 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 994 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.1. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,082 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.