Suppr超能文献

基于警示触发的患者教育与护士反馈在预防静脉血栓栓塞症非医嘱用药中的效果比较:一项整群随机对照试验

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

机构信息

Department of Surgery Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore MD.

Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine Baltimore MD.

出版信息

J Am Heart Assoc. 2022 Sep 20;11(18):e027119. doi: 10.1161/JAHA.122.027119. Epub 2022 Sep 1.

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 academic 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 prophylaxis. 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 (<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 (=0.03) and refused doses (=0.003) compared with nurse feedback (OR, 1.28 [95% CI, 1.0-1.61]; =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.

摘要

背景 许多住院患者未接受规定剂量的药物预防静脉血栓栓塞。

方法和结果 在这项集群随机对照试验中,1 所学术医院的所有非重症监护病房(10 个内科,6 个外科)均被随机分配到实时电子警报触发的以患者为中心的教育包干预组或护士反馈干预组,以评估其降低静脉血栓栓塞预防药物非给药的效果。主要结局为规定药物预防剂量的非给药比例。次要结局为按非给药原因(患者拒绝、其他)分层的非给药剂量比例。为了检验我们的主要假设,即这两种干预都能减少非给药,我们在每个队列中比较了干预前后的结果。次要假设是通过比较队列之间的效果来检验的。在 11098 次就诊中,干预后总体剂量非给药显著下降(13.4%对 9.2%;比值比[OR],0.64[95%置信区间,0.57-0.71])。两个组臂的非给药都显著下降(<0.001):以患者为中心的教育包组,从 12.2%降至 7.4%(OR,0.56[95%置信区间,0.48-0.66]),护士反馈组,从 14.7%降至 11.2%(OR,0.72[95%置信区间,0.62-0.84])。两个组臂的患者拒绝都显著下降:以患者为中心的教育包组,从 7.3%降至 3.7%(OR,0.46[95%置信区间,0.37-0.58]),护士反馈组,从 9.5%降至 7.1%(OR,0.71[95%置信区间,0.59-0.86])。医疗与外科病房之间未出现差异效应。与护士反馈相比,以患者为中心的教育包在减少所有非给药(=0.03)和拒绝剂量(=0.003)方面的效果更显著(OR,1.28[95%置信区间,1.0-1.61];交互作用的=0.03)。

结论 类似实时触发警报的以患者为中心的教育包以及以护士为重点的审计和反馈等信息技术策略可以提高静脉血栓栓塞预防药物的给药率。

注册网址

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov;独特标识符:NCT03367364。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/0d6f/9683644/210dd3c8e795/JAH3-11-e027119-g002.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验