urc mondor

<p><b>OBJECTIVES: </b>To evaluate the efficacy of an intervention on the practice of venous thromboembolism prevention.</p><p><b>DESIGN: </b>A multicenter, prospective, controlled, cluster-randomized, multifaceted intervention trial consisting of educational lectures, posters, and pocket cards reminding physicians of the guidelines for thromboprophylaxis use.</p><p><b>SETTINGS: </b>Twelve geriatric departments with 1861 beds total, of which 202, 803, and 856 in acute care, post-acute care, and long-term care wards, respectively.</p><p><b>PARTICIPANTS: </b>Patients hospitalized between January 1 and May 31, 2015, in participating departments.</p><p><b>MEASUREMENTS: </b>The primary endpoint was the overall adequacy of thromboprophylaxis prescription at the patient level, defined as a composite endpoint consisting of indication, regimen, and duration of treatment. Geriatric departments were divided into an intervention group (6 departments) and control group (6 departments). The preintervention period was 1 month to provide baseline practice levels, the intervention period 2 months, and the postintervention period 1 month in acute care and post-acute care wards or 2 months in long-term care wards. Multivariable regression was used to analyze factors associated with the composite outcome.</p><p><b>RESULTS: </b>We included 2962 patients (1426 preintervention and 1536 postintervention), with median age 85 [79;90] years. For the overall 18.9% rate of inadequate thromboprophylaxis, 11.1% was attributable to underuse and 7.9% overuse. Intervention effects were more apparent in post-acute and long-term care wards although not significantly [odds ratio 1.44 (95% confidence interval 0.78;2.66), P = .241; and 1.44 (0.68, 3.06), P = .345]. Adequacy rates significantly improved in the postintervention period for the intervention group overall (from 78.9% to 83.4%; P = .027) and in post-acute care (from 75.4% to 86.3%; P = .004) and long-term care (from 87.0% to 91.7%; P = .050) wards, with no significant trend observed in the control group.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: </b>This study failed to demonstrate improvement in prophylaxis adequacy with our intervention. However, the intervention seemed to improve practices in post-acute and long-term care but not acute care wards.</p>