The staff and patient perspectives on compliance with mechanical prophylaxis for venous thromboembolism

Abstract Background This study evaluated the accuracy of assessment and compliance with proper use of intermittent pneumatic compression (IPC) devices before and after implementation of education, accountability, and oversight measures for health care providers. Methods Prospective analysis of randomly selected, emergently hospitalized adult patients was performed (group 1). IPC use was observed by random visual inspections. These patients underwent independent venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk assessments by the admitting service and a VTE consult service. Mechanical prophylaxis orders were subsequently reviewed. Next, strategies to improve compliance were implemented. One year later, prospective analysis of a similar cohort (group 2) was performed, followed by surveys of staff and patients to identify barriers to compliance. Results In group 1, VTE risk assessments were accurate and IPC was appropriately ordered. Of patients who needed IPC, 24 had IPC correctly applied and 72 did not. In group 2, VTE risk assessments were accurate and IPC was appropriately ordered. Of patients who needed IPC, 26 had IPC correctly applied and 74 did not. Surveys revealed that most providers are aware of the indications, order appropriately, and make efforts to ensure application. Most nurses reported that orders were placed and that IPC was applied. Most patients claimed to have knowledge of VTE and IPC use, but half reported that they were not educated and complained of sleep interference. Conclusions Even with implementation of strategies to improve compliance, most patients do not receive adequate mechanical prophylaxis. Health care providers appropriately order prophylactic measures but do not follow up to ensure application. Discomfort and lack of education of the patient were important barriers to prophylaxis.