Assessment of deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis in surgical patients: a study conducted at Nancy University Hospital, France

Abstract

Objective: This retrospective evaluation aimed to assess the adequacy of prophylaxis against thromboembolism prescribed to surgical patients at the authors' institution, and to compare it with generally accepted published guidelines. Aspects considered were indications for prophylaxis, regimens used and monitoring.

Methods: Eleven units (nine surgical and two surgical intensive care) took part in the survey on a voluntary basis. The clinical audit system used involved developing a set of criteria based on existing guidelines, comparing observed practice with those recommendations, analysing the factors underlying any deviation and developing corrective measures.

Results: When the medical records of 117 patients hospitalized in October 1995 were examined, prophylaxis against deep vein thrombosis was documented in 86 (low molecular weight heparin in 85, dextran in one). No associated physical preventative measures were recorded. Indications and dosage were appropriately handled in 90.7% and 75.2% of patients, respectively. Ninety-five cases were outside the reference criteria: 74 for excluded surgical indications, 13 which involved laparoscopy, and eight in which spinal or epidural anaesthesia was administered. Platelet count was performed in 73.8% of cases before prophylactic treatment, and in 23.1% during its course. Anti-Xa activity was measured in 0.4% of cases. Analysis of causes showed that guidelines were not complied with either because of lack of organization, or because of disagreement with them.

Discussion: In this study, indications for prophylaxis were well established and heparin dosages used were not fundamentally flawed. The weak point in practice was a failure to carry out platelet counts, particularly during the course of treatment. Appropriate corrective action consists of disseminating guidelines and relevant information, and using a preoperative checklist to assess thromboembolic risk.

Conclusion: Physicians agree that opportunities to improve preventative practices exist, and that the quality improvement programme should be pursued.