Physician Compliance With Warfarin Prophylaxis for Central Venous Catheters in Patients With Solid Tumors

2000 ◽  
Vol 18 (21) ◽  
pp. 3665-3667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen M. Carr ◽  
Ian Rabinowitz
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Compliance Rate ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Independent Mechanism ◽  
Prescribing Practice

PURPOSE: There is an established benefit of prophylactic warfarin in cancer patients with central venous catheters. This study assessed the compliance rate of prophylactic low-dose warfarin prescription in cancer patients with central venous catheters at a single institution. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Oncology patients with central venous catheters were identified by a retrospective chart review. Information retrieved included whether prophylactic warfarin had been prescribed and whether the patient had suffered a thrombotic or bleeding event. After the initial chart review, physicians were notified of the benefits of warfarin prophylaxis, and subsequently, a physician-independent mechanism of prescribing prophylactic warfarin was instituted. After each of these interventions, we retrospectively reviewed a further two cohorts of patients to assess compliance with warfarin prophylaxis. RESULTS: During the baseline study, only 10% of patients were prescribed prophylactic warfarin. After physician notification, the compliance rate increased to only 20% (P = .3). After instituting the physician-independent mechanism of prescribing prophylactic warfarin, the compliance rate increased to 95% (P < .001). The rate of catheter-related thrombosis was 11% for patients who were prescribed warfarin compared with 21% in those who were not anticoagulated (P = .2). CONCLUSION: At our institution, the rate of prescribing prophylactic warfarin was low in this patient population, and there was a reluctance of treating physicians to change their prescribing practice. Mechanisms exist to improve the rate of anticoagulant prophylaxis in this clinical setting. We recommend that institutions review their rate of compliance with prophylactic anticoagulation for patients with central venous catheters and solid tumors.

scholarly journals Impact of Critical Care Consultation Requests for Avoidable Central Venous Catheters on Medical-Surgical Units

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s258-s258
Author(s):  
Madhuri Tirumandas ◽  
Theresa Madaline ◽  
Gregory David Weston ◽  
Ruchika Jain ◽  
Jamie Figueredo
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Central Venous

Background: Although central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in US hospitals have improved in the last decade, ~30,100 CLABSIs occur annually.1,2 Central venous catheters (CVC) carry a high risk of infections and should be limited to appropriate clinical indications.6,7 Montefiore Medical Center, a large, urban, academic medical center in the Bronx, serves a high-risk population with multiple comobidities.8–11 Despite this, the critical care medicine (CCM) team is often consulted to place a CVC when a peripheral intravenous line (PIV) cannot be obtained by nurses or primary providers. We evaluated the volume of CCM consultation requests for avoidable CVCs and related CLABSIs. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed for patients with CCM consultation requests for CVC placement between July and October 2019. The indication for CVC, type of catheter inserted or recommended, and NHSN data were used to identify CLABSIs. CVCs were considered avoidable if a PIV was used for the stated indication and duration of therapy, with no anatomical contraindications to PIV in nonemergencies, according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).6Results: Of 229 total CCM consults, 4 (18%) requests were for CVC placement; 21 consultations (9%) were requested for avoidable CVCs. Of 40 CVC requests, 18 (45%) resulted in CVC placement by the CCM team, 4 (10%) were deferred for nonurgent PICC by interventional radiology, and 18 (45%) were deferred in favor of PIV or no IV. Indications for CVC insertion included emergent chemotherapy (n = 8, 44%) and dialysis (n = 3, 16%), vasopressors (n = 3, 16%), antibiotics (n = 2, 11%) and blood transfusion (n = 2, 11%). Of 18 CVCs, 9 (50%) were potentially avoidable: 2 short-term antibiotics and rest for nonemergent indications; 2 blood transfusions, 1 dialysis, 2 chemotherapy and 2 vasopressors. Between July and October 2019, 6 CLABSIs occurred in CVCs placed by the CCM team; in 3 of 6 CLABSI events (50%), the CVC was avoidable. Conclusions: More than half of consultation requests to the CCM team for CVCs are avoidable, and they disproportionately contribute to CLABSI events. Alternatives for intravenous access could potentially avoid 9% of CCM consultations and 50% of CLABSIs in CCM-inserted CVCs on medical-surgical wards.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

scholarly journals Primary thromboprophylaxis for cancer patients with central venous catheters – a reappraisal of the evidence

2006 ◽  
Vol 94 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
M S Cunningham ◽  
B White ◽  
D Hollywood ◽  
J O'Donnell
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous

Documentation of medical marijuana use in cancer patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 1117-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica N LeClair ◽  
Kevin W Chamberlin ◽  
Jessica Clement ◽  
Lisa M Holle
Keyword(s):  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Medical Marijuana ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Marijuana Use ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Medication List ◽  
Post Test ◽  
Medical Marijuana Use

Purpose Medical marijuana is often used as adjuvant therapy in cancer patients for symptom management, although limited evidence-based studies evaluating its efficacy or safety exist. Similar to over-the-counter medications, supplements, or herbal products, documentation of medical marijuana is important to monitor efficacy, potential adverse effects, or interactions. The objective of this quality improvement study was to improve the consistency of medical marijuana documentation in cancer patients by assessing current practices; educating healthcare team members about the importance of documentation and newly established documentation process; and evaluating the new documentation process. Methods This three-part quality improvement study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. In part I, a voluntary survey was sent via email to Cancer Center healthcare personnel to assess the current documentation process of medical marijuana. In part II, a best practice process for documenting medical marijuana in the electronic medical record was established. Medical marijuana was to be listed as a historical medication in the medication list. In-person and electronic education sessions were offered to Cancer Center clinical staff. The education emphasized the importance of documenting medical marijuana use and provided a detailed process for electronic medical record documentation. A pre- and post-test to assess understanding was also included. Part III was a retrospective chart review to evaluate documentation practices of certified medical marijuana users in the Cancer Center. Patients included in the study were greater than 18 years old and certified for medical marijuana use on or after 1 January 2018. Department of Corrections patients were excluded. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. Results The survey results in part I demonstrated a lack of consistency in the documentation of medical marijuana in the Cancer Center. The pre- and post-test scores measured in part II showed a significant improvement in understanding after education was provided. The average pre-test score was a 61 and post-test score was 88, indicating an average increase of 27 points. A larger increase in test scores was observed in those attending the in-person education than the online sessions ( p < 0.002). The results of the retrospective chart review in part III revealed 56 patients who met inclusion criteria, but only 39 patients were alive and evaluated at the time of the retrospective chart review. Of the 39 patients, 22 never completed the patient registration process and therefore, would never have been able to obtain medical marijuana. Seven patients had medical marijuana properly documented in their medication list and 10 patients were missing documentation in the medication list, showing room for improvement in documentation practices. Conclusions This quality improvement study led to the implementation of medical marijuana documentation in the medication list. Education increased healthcare team members understanding of medical marijuana utilization and the importance of documentation.

Cost-effectiveness of prophylaxis against on-demand treatment in boys with severe hemophilia A in Iran

2009 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 584-587 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aliasghar Ahmad Kia Daliri ◽  
Hassan Haghparast ◽  
Jahanara Mamikhani
Keyword(s):  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Chart Review ◽  
Prophylactic Treatment ◽  
Bleeding Event ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
On Demand ◽  
Bleeding Episodes ◽  
Hemophilia Treatment Centers

Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the incremental cost-effectiveness of on-demand versus prophylactic hemophilia therapy in Iran from a third-party payers’ perspective.Methods: A retrospective chart review of twenty-five type A hemophiliacs who were treated in three hemophilia treatment centers was conducted. The patients were boys 0–9 years old receiving one of two treatments: (i) prophylaxis with concentrate at clinic; (ii) concentrate at clinic as on-demand. Fourteen boys received on-demand infusions for bleeding events, and eleven boys received infusions prophylaxis. Data were extracted from documents in the hemophilia treatment centers during a period of approximately 6 months.Results: The patients receiving prophylactic treatment had fewer bleeding events each month (mean, 0.26 versus 2.74) but used more concentrate (225.31 versus 87.20 units/kg per month). Average monthly cost per patient in the prophylaxis group was approximately 1.9 times higher than in the on-demand group. Compared with on-demand infusion, prophylaxis costs 3,201,656 Rials (€213.45) per bleeding event prevented.Conclusion: Prophylactic care markedly reduces the number of bleeding episodes, but at considerable cost.

Thrombus and thrombosis in cancer patients with permanent venous catheters

2000 ◽  
Vol 20 (03) ◽  
pp. 143-145
Author(s):  
H. D. Bruhn ◽  
F. Gieseler
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Vascular Lumen ◽  
Additive Risk ◽  
Thrombotic Complications ◽  
Port Systems ◽  
Central Catheters

SummaryCancer patients have additive risk factors for thrombosis especially if permanent central catheters (port systems) are used for the delivery of chemotherapy. In our hospital the rate of thrombotic complications is below 5% for cancer patients receiving chemotherapy via port systems. This is in contrast to clinical studies, which have shown that up to 60% of catheters acquire clots that obstruct more than 50% of the vascular lumen. It is reasonable to believe that complications arising from thrombotic catheter alterations, such as bacterial hosting or micro-emboli, are clinically underestimated. The identification of thrombotic alterations of permanent central venous catheters in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy is substantial for the estimation whether anticoagulation strategies should be used as prophylaxis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document