Construction and application of a smart hospital platform-based VTE risk management system.
Venous thromboembolism incidence among inpatients fell after smart platform-based risk management system implementation
Construction and application of a smart hospital platform-based VTE risk management system.
Venous thromboembolism (venous thromboembolism) ranks as the third most prevalent cardiovascular disease after acute myocardial infarction and stroke, posing a significant risk to patient safety.
This study aimed to design and implement a smart hospital platform-based venous thromboembolism risk management system and evaluate its impact on venous thromboembolism and bleeding risk assessment times, thereby enhancing clinical venous thromboembolism prevention and control.
A prospective interventional study was conducted to compare outcomes before and after the implementation of the venous thromboembolism risk management system.
vte cases dropped sharply after rollout, fewer clots per inpatients
Following system implementation, the time required for nurses to complete venous thromboembolism risk assessments was reduced from 101.90 ± 15.694 s to 37.18 ± 5.701 s ( p < 0.001), while the time for physicians to complete bleeding risk assessments decreased from 138.08 ± 17.348 s to 50.00 ± 9.013 s ( p < 0.001).
The timeliness of venous thromboembolism risk assessments improved from 71.0 to 92.0% ( p < 0.001), bleeding risk assessment timeliness increased from 74.0 to 94.0% ( p < 0.001), dynamic risk assessment rates rose from 78.0 to 95.0% ( p < 0.001), and the accuracy of risk assessments improved from 64.0 to 92.0% ( p < 0.001).
The venous thromboembolism risk management system developed on a smart hospital platform demonstrated marked improvements in risk assessment efficiency and process quality indicators.
These findings suggest that the system is feasible and can effectively support standardized venous thromboembolism management in a real-world hospital setting.
However, given the pre-post study design without a concurrent control group, the observed clinical benefits should be interpreted as preliminary trends rather than definitive evidence of effectiveness.