Clinical predictors of prophylaxis use prior to the onset of acute venous thromboembolism in hospitalized patients SWIss Venous ThromboEmbolism Registry (SWIVTER).

BACKGROUND: We investigated clinical predictors of appropriate prophylaxis prior to the onset of venous thromboembolism (VTE). METHODS: In 14 Swiss hospitals, 567 consecutive patients (306 medical, 261 surgical) with acute VTE and hospitalization < 30 days prior to the VTE event were enrolled. RESULTS: Prophylaxis was used in 329 (58%) patients within 30 days prior to the VTE event. Among the medical patients, 146 (48%) received prophylaxis, and among the surgical patients, 183 (70%) received prophylaxis (P < 0.001). The indication for prophylaxis was present in 262 (86%) medical patients and in 217 (83%) surgical patients. Among the patients with an indication for prophylaxis, 135 (52%) of the medical patients and 165 (76%) of the surgical patients received prophylaxis (P < 0.001). Admission to the intensive care unit [odds ratio (OR) 3.28, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.94-5.57], recent surgery (OR 2.28, 95% CI 1.51-3.44), bed rest > 3 days (OR 2.12, 95% CI 1.45-3.09), obesity (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.03-3.90), prior deep vein thrombosis (OR 1.71, 95% CI 1.31-2.24) and prior pulmonary embolism (OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.05-2.26) were independent predictors of prophylaxis. In contrast, cancer (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.89-1.25), age (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.98-1.01), acute heart failure (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.79-1.63) and acute respiratory failure (OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.89-1.59) were not predictive of prophylaxis. CONCLUSIONS: Although an indication for prophylaxis was present in most patients who suffered acute VTE, almost half did not receive any form of prophylaxis. Future efforts should focus on the improvement of prophylaxis for hospitalized patients, particularly in patients with cancer, acute heart or respiratory failure, and in the elderly.

Emergency department visits for non-life-threatening conditions : evolution over 13 years in a Swiss urban teaching hospital

INTRODUCTION: A large proportion of visits to our Emergency Department (ED) are for non-life-threatening conditions. We investigated whether patients' characteristics and reasons for consultation had changed over 13 years. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients with non-life-threatening conditions at triage were included in the spring of 2000 and in the summer of 2013. In both years patients completed a similar questionnaire, which addressed their reasons for consultation and any previous consultation with a general practitioner (GP). RESULTS: We included 581 patients in 2013 vs 516 in 2000, with a mean age of 44.5 years vs 46.4 years (p=0.128). Of these patients, 54.0% vs 57.0% were male (p=0.329), 55.5% vs 58.7% were Swiss (p=0.282), 76.4% were registered with a GP in both periods, but self-referral increased from 52.0% to 68.8% (p<0.001); 57.7% vs., 58.3% consulted during out-of- hours (p=0.821). Trauma-related visits decreased from 34.2% to 23.7% (p<0.001). Consultations within 12 hours of onset of symptoms dropped from 54.5% to 30.9%, and delays of ≥1 week increased from 14.3% to 26.9% (p<0.001). The primary motive for self-referral remained unawareness of an alternative, followed in 2013 by dissatisfaction with the GP's treatment or appointment. Patients who believed that their health problem would not require hospitalisation increased from 52.8% to 74.2% and those who were actually hospitalised decreased from 24.9% to 13.9% (all p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The number of visits for non-life-threatening consultations continue to increase. Our ED is used by a large proportion of patients as a convenient alternative source of primary care.

Quality of Qualitative Research in the Health Sciences : Analysis of the Common Criteria Present in 58 Assessment Guidelines by Expert Users

The number of qualitative research methods has grown substantially over the last twenty years, both in social sciences and, more recently, in the health sciences. This growth came with questions on the quality criteria needed to evaluate this work, and numerous guidelines were published. The latters include many discrepancies though, both in their vocabulary and construction. Many expert evaluators decry the absence of consensual and reliable evaluation tools. The authors present the results of an evaluation of 58 existing guidelines in 4 major health science fields (medicine and epidemiology; nursing and health education; social sciences and public health; psychology / psychiatry, research methods and organization) by expert users (article reviewers, experts allocating funds, editors, etc.). The results propose a toolbox containing 12 consensual criteria with the definitions given by expert users. They also indicate in which disciplinary field each type of criteria is known to be more or less essential. Nevertheless, the authors highlight the limitations of the criteria comparability, as soon as one focuses on their specific definitions. They conclude that each criterion in the toolbox must be explained to come to broader consensus and identify definitions that are consensual to all the fields examined and easily operational.