Background The use of thromboprophylaxis among acutely ill hospitalized medical patients remains inconsistent. Objective To improve thromboprophylaxis use by implementing a computer-based alert system combined with a Geneva Risk Score calculation tool in the electronic patient chart and order entry system. Patients/Methods Consecutive patients admitted to the general internal medicine wards of the University Hospital Bern, Switzerland were randomized to the alert group, in which an alert and the Geneva Risk Score calculation tool was issued in the electronic patient chart, or to the control group, in which no alert was issued. The primary endpoint was the rate of appropriate thromboprophylaxis during hospital stay. Results Overall, 1593 patients (alert group, 804; control group, 789) were eligible for analysis. The median age was 67 years (interquartile range, 53-79 years) and 47% were female. Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was administered to 536 (66.7%) patients from the alert group and to 526 (66.7%) patients from the control group. Among the 804 patients from the alert group, a total of 446 (55.5%) either had no score calculation by the physician in charge (n = 348) or had a calculated score result that was inconsistent with information from the patient chart (n = 98). Appropriate thromboprophylaxis was less often administered to patients with no score or an inconsistent score result than to 358 patients with a consistent score result (62.6% versus 71.8%). Conclusions The electronic alert (e-alert) system did not improve appropriate thromboprophylaxis, most likely because many e-alerts were ignored by ordering physicians. The use of appropriate thromboprophylaxis in the control group was higher than expected.

BackgroundMany patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) do not receive oral anticoagulants (OAC) for the prevention of stroke and systemic embolism. We aimed to improve the prescription of (OAC) among hospitalized patients with AF.Methods and ResultsWe developed a computer‐based electronic alert system for identifying hospitalized OAC‐naïve patients with AF. The alert system contained a CHA 2 DS 2‐VASc score calculation tool and provided recommendations for OAC prescription. The alert system was tested in a 1:1 randomized controlled trial at the University Hospital Bern: Patients with suspected AF without an active prescription order were allocated to an alert group in which an alert was issued in the electronic patient chart and order entry system or to a control group in which no alert was issued. The primary end point was the rate of adequate OAC prescription at hospital discharge, defined as prescription in OAC‐naïve men and women with CHA 2 DS 2‐VASc score ≥1 and ≥2, respectively. Overall, 889 OAC‐naïve patients (455 from the alert group and 434 from the control group) were eligible for analysis. Although the CHA 2 DS 2‐VASc score module was used in only 48 (10.5%) patients from the alert group, 100 (22.0%) patients from the alert group versus 69 (15.9%) from the control group received adequate OAC prescription (relative risk 1.38; P=0.021). OAC or antiplatelet therapy was prescribed in 325 (71.4%) patients from the alert group versus 271 (62.4%) from the control group (P=0.004).ConclusionsVersus standard care, the alert system modestly improved OAC prescription among consecutive hospitalized AF patients.Clinical Trial Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02455102.

No abstract