Summary Aims The aim of the study was to evaluate the impact of the ENDORSE study results on thromboprophylaxis prescribing patterns in medical patients attending the Emergency Department (ED) by assessing prescribing appropriateness at admission. Methods A cross-sectional, observational, descriptive study was designed and included all adult medical patients admitted from an ED between 20 November 2012 and 26 November 2012 at a large tertiary hospital. Patients to whom anticoagulants were prescribed for therapeutic purposes, patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit or maternity wards were excluded. Prescribing appropriateness was assessed using the Padua Prediction Score (ACCP 2012 guideline) for thromboembolic risk assessment and the NICE model to determine risk of bleeding. The primary end-point was the adequacy of thromboprophylaxis prescribed at the ED according to the ACCP 2012 guideline. Results A total of 393 patients were examined and 207 patients were included in the study (53.1% were male) with a median age of 75.3 years. The most common diagnosis at admission was related to a respiratory disease (41.1%). In 34.8% of the patients (72 patients), the recommendation of prophylaxis according to ACCP 2012 guideline did not match with the prophylaxis prescribed at admission. Reasons for non-concordance were undertreatment (14.5%) and overtreatment (20.3%). Conclusions The adequacy of thromboprophylaxis in high risk patients for VTE has improved compared with the ENDORSE study. However, the percentage of patients with discordant prescriptions remains high. Despite the existence of treatment omissions, this percentage has been overcome by patients overtreated.
