This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0269216308096723v1 22/7/808    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Noble, S I. R Articles by Finlay, I G Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Noble, S I. R Articles by Finlay, I G Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Factors influencing hospice thromboprophylaxis policy: a qualitative study

¹ Department of Palliative Medicine, Cardiff University and Royal Gwent Hospital, Gwent
² Department of Palliative Medicine, Wales Cancer Trials Unit, Cardiff
³ Department of Palliative Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

	Abstract

Despite level 1 evidence supporting the use of low–molecular weight heparin thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised cancer patients, only 7% of specialist palliative care units (SCPU) have thromboprophylaxis guidelines. The reasons for this are unclear. To explore specialist palliative care units (SPCU) directors' views on thromboprophylaxis in the inpatient unit, audiotaped semi-structured interviews were conducted with SCPU medical directors to explore factors influencing thromboprophylaxis practice. Purposive sampling of units known not to have thromboprophylaxis guidelines was conducted (as identified from previous research). The hospice directory was used to sample from units in each region of Great Britain and Ireland to ensure representation across the specialty. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using interpretative phenomenological analysis (IPA). Four major and four sub themes were identified. Participants were progressive in their attitudes to palliative care and comfortable with instigating active interventions for patient benefit. Symptomatic venous thromboembolism (VTE) was rarely seen and therefore not considered important enough to warrant guidelines. There was concern that evidence informing thromboprophylaxis guidelines in the general population was not transferable to the advanced cancer population and that the outcome measures from these studies were less meaningful to a palliative care patient. Thromboprophylaxis was considered a life prolonging intervention which may result in a poorer death than one because of VTE. Nevertheless, participants were receptive to change if presented with convincing evidence derived from a representative population. Until the true prevalence and symptomatic burden of VTE is known, the role of thromboprophylaxis in the SPCU setting will remain controversial. There is a need for a well-designed study to explore the utility of thromboprophylaxis in the palliative care inpatient setting. However, this will require meaningful outcome measures to be used within a clinically applicable population.

Key Words: thromboprophylaxis, hospite, palliative care, qualitative, advanced cancer, attitudes

First published on September 4, 2008, doi:10.1177/0269216308096723

Palliative Medicine 2008;22:808.

A more recent version of this article appeared on October 1, 2008


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?