Entrar/Registro  
HOME SPANISH
 
Cirujano General
   
MENU

Contents by Year, Volume and Issue

Table of Contents

General Information

Instructions for Authors

Message to Editor

Editorial Board






>Journals >Cirujano General >Year 2011, Issue 3


Pérez CVJA
Modified Caprini’s checklist as a strategy to apply a safety program for the patient in the prevention of thromboembolic disease
Cir Gen 2011; 33 (3)

Language: Español
References: 13
Page: 151-155
PDF: 4. Kb.


Full text




ABSTRACT

Objective: To assess whether the modified Caprini risk stratification list for the evaluation of risk factors in venous thromboembolic disease is useful for the daily surgical practice and to evaluate the current status of knowledge on thromboprophylaxis.
Setting: National Meeting of General Surgeons-2009, Hacienda de San Miguel Regla, Hgo. Mexican Association of General Surgery, A.C.
Design: Prospective, cross-sectional, comparative, observational study.
Statistical analysis: Percentages as summary measure for qualitative variables and Yates’ chi-square test.
Material and methods: We performed a study with 93 opinion leaders in Surgery of the whole country, and a presentation was used to point out the knowledge and most important evidences regarding thromboprophylaxis. Thereafter, in small groups, a typical clinical case and the modified Caprini risk assessment list were presented and discussed in each working table and for each clinical case for 2 to 3 min to provide an answer, based on clinical evidence. This exercise was performed five times with diverse cases; all surgical in nature and with different grades of difficulty. At the end of the exercise, a perception interview was performed regarding knowledge acquisition with two questions, aimed at finding out if the surgeon is aware and is continuously updated on the subject, and a third question to explore whether the tool is or not useful for the surgeon’s daily activity.
Results: We delivered 93 questionnaires, corresponding to 100% of the attendants; 66 were solved completely. The validation tool seemed to be useful in 97%. A comparison was made between the questions exploring whether the participant had obtained new knowledge or had only up-dated it. We found statistically significant difference, since to the first question more than half of the surveyed participants indicated that they did not acquire new knowledge; however, when responding to whether the performed exercise had refreshed that knowledge, most responses were positive (P ‹ 0.001).
Conclusion: A continuous medical education on thromboprophylaxis must be maintained and it is accepted that the modified Caprini risk assessment list is useful for the daily practice.


Key words: Safety, thromboprophylaxis, thromboembolic disease.


REFERENCIAS

  1. Conley DM, Singer SJ, Edmondson L, Berry WR, Gawande AA. Effective surgical safety checklist implementation. J Am Coll Surg 2011: 212; 873-879.

  2. Tooher R, Middleton P, Pham C, Fitridge R, Rowe S, Babidge W, et al. A systematic review of strategies to improve prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism in hospitals. Ann Surg 2005; 241: 397-415.

  3. Cohen AT, Tapson VF, Bergmann JF, Goldhaber SZ, Kakkar AK, Deslandes B, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk and prophylaxis in the acute hospital care setting (ENDORSE study): a multinational cross-sectional study. Lancet 2008; 371: 387-394.

  4. Martinez-Zubieta R. Tromboembolismo venoso y profilaxis en enfermedades agudas hospitalarias. Resultados en México de un estudio transversal multicéntrico (ENDORSE II). Cir Cir 2010; 78: 333-41.

  5. Brennan TA, Leape LL, Laird NM, Hebert L, Localio AR, Lawthers AG, et al. Incidence of adverse events and negligence in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study I. N Engl J Med 1991; 324: 370-376.

  6. Wilson RM, Runciman WB, Gibberd RW, Harrison BT, Newby L, Hamilton JD. The Quality in Australian Health Care Study. Med J Aust 1995; 163: 458-471.

  7. Vincent C, Neale G, Woloshynowych M. Adverse events in British hospitals: preliminary retrospective record review BMJ 2001; 322: 517-519.

  8. Goldhaber SZ, Visani L, De Rosa M. Acute pulmonary embolism: clinical outcomes in the International Cooperative Pulmonary Embolism Registry (ICOPER). Lancet 1999; 353: 1386-1389.

  9. Delgado BH, Jiménez CC, García PC. Trombosis venosa profunda consecutiva a cirugía de la cadera y de la rodilla: determinación de su incidencia. Rev Mex Ortopedia 1993: 7; 195-198.

  10. Flores-Barroeta F, Velasco-Avilés F. Principal diseases found in necropsies of various hospitals of Mexico City. Findings in the Hospital General Centro Médico Nacional. Gac Med Mex 1971; 102: 208-15.

  11. Sigler L, Romero T, Meillon LA, Gutiérrez L, Aguirre GJ, Esparza C. Tromboembolia pulmonar en autopsias en un periodo de 10 años. Rev Med IMSS 1996; 34: 7-11.

  12. Carrillo ER, Saucedo AH, Núñez BJJ, Contreras CN, Escárpita BN, Leal GP, et al. ¿Hospitales enfermos o pacientes enfermos? Parte II Profilaxis de la enfermedad tromboembólica venosa en la Fundación Clínica Médica Sur. Med Sur 2007; 14: 176-84.

  13. Caprini JA, Arcelus JI, Reyna JJ. Effective risk stratification of surgical and nonsurgical patients for venous thromboembolic disease. Semin Hematol 2001; 38(2 Suppl 5) :12-19.






>Journals >Cirujano General >Year 2011, Issue 3
 

· Journal Index 
· Links 






       
Copyright 2019