Article Text

Download PDFPDF

Improving venous thromboembolism risk assessment rates in a tertiary urology department
  1. Elizabeth Mabey,
  2. Samiha Ismail,
  3. Falguni Tailor
  1. Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, King’s College London School of Medical Education, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Elizabeth Mabey; elizabeth.mabey{at}


Venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a significant cause of mortality and morbidity among hospitalised patients. A VTE risk assessment reduces this through facilitating correct prophylaxis. Since 2010, the Commissioning for Quality and Innovation payments framework dictates that >95% adult inpatients must have a VTE risk assessment within 24 hours of admission. This target is not currently being met by the urology department at Guy’s and St. Thomas’ Trust (GSTT). Following analysis, a quality improvement project aimed to increase VTE risk assessment rates for patients admitted under urology at GSTT. Two series of interventions were introduced following the Plan, Do, Study, Act structure aimed at urology theatres and wards, respectively. These boosted awareness of the VTE risk assessment and streamlined it into routine surgical workload. Despite not reaching the 95% target, the project increased rates among patients admitted directly to surgical units by 5%–8%. It highlighted the difficulties in driving a change in established routine and demonstrated a need for firmer interventions with effective communication.

  • healthcare quality improvement
  • pdsa
  • quality improvement
  • clinical practice guidelines

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See:

View Full Text

Statistics from


  • Handling editor Jen Perry

  • Contributors EM, SI and FT together designed the quality improvement project and collected baseline data. EM and FT implemented PDSA cycles and collected data following each cycle. SI conducted statistical analysis. EM wrote the article draft. EM, SI and FT gave final approval for the article to be published.

  • Disclaimer All the views expressed in this paper are our own and do not reflect the official position of King’s College London.

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.