1527 Venous thromboprophylaxis in ambulatory emergency department patients managed with lower limb immobilization. A national survey

Conclusion A total of 116 (69%) of Type 1 EDs submitted a response. Nearly all (>95%) would consider thromboprophylaxis when a rigid cast was applied, but this was less for removable semi-rigid splints of the ankle (53%) or knee (20%). Of responding EDs, 83% used a RAM; most often a locally developed tool or NICE guidance. Published RAMs designed specifically for use in these patients were used by only 16% of EDs. When indicated, the majority of departments reported using LMWH (70%) in accordance with NICE guidelines, but 29% used a DOAC. Duration of thromboprophylaxis prescription also varied widely (table 1). Abstract 1527 Table 1Responses to questions 3, 5, 7 and 9 of survey Question 3. Would you consider thromboprophylaxis with the following? (116 responses) Number (%) Above knee Plaster of Paris or resin cast 114 (98) Below knee Plaster of Paris or resin cast 110 (95) Below knee Equinus Plaster of Paris or Resin Cast 110 (95) Walking boot 61 (53) Removable knee splint 23 (20) No immobilisation, but crutches and weight bearing as tolerated 6 (5) Question 5. What Risk Assessment Method do you use? (102 responses) Number (%) Locally developed tool (unpublished) 32 (31) NICE guidelines 26 (25) I do not know which one we use 23 (22) GEMNet 7 (7) Plymouth Score 7 (7) L-TRiP(cast) Score 1 (1) TRiP(cast) Score 3. Would you consider thromboprophylaxis with the following? 1 (1) Modified Caprini Score 0 (0) Other 6 (6) Question 7. What Thromboprophylaxis agent is first line...
Source: Emergency Medicine Journal - Category: Emergency Medicine Authors: Tags: RCEM Moderated Papers Source Type: research