RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 A survey of current anticoagulation patient education practices and development
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.03.11.21252961
DO 10.1101/2021.03.11.21252961
A1 Aubrey E. Jones
A1 John Saunders
A1 Sara Vazquez
A1 Angela Fagerlin
A1 Daniel M. Witt
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/03/12/2021.03.11.21252961.abstract
AB Introduction Anticoagulants are high-risk medications widely used to prevent and treat thrombotic events, resulting in a need for adequate patient education to minimize harm. While anticoagulant patient education interventions can improve knowledge and surrogate outcomes, they may not represent current practice. Our objective was to determine provider perceptions of anticoagulation patient education at their institution.Methods A quantitative survey was distributed through a national professional organization and across several health systems. Questions included educational delivery methods, perceived effectiveness, evaluation of patient knowledge, development of patient education, and demographics.Results The 61 survey respondents were 79.0% female, 86.2% white, and an average age of 43. Most respondents (95%) complete patient education interventions in one session. Providers reviewed educational topics in 37% of daily patient interactions. 59% of respondents reported reasons for not performing patient knowledge checks included no formal process requiring knowledge checks, lack of time, and forgetting. The majority (93.4%) reported their patient education process was somewhat or very effective. The main reason underlying perceived less effective patient education was too much information in one session. Thirty-four respondents had some knowledge of patient education development at their institution. Most of these (82.9%) indicated their educational process’s development relied on expert opinion. In comparison, 22.9% indicated utilizing user-based design, and 10 (28.9%) respondents used learning theories.Conclusion While most providers felt patient education was effective, they reported reviewing education with patients daily. The lack of formal knowledge checks and best practices in developing patient education tools are significant gaps to address.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementThis research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectorsAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:University of Utah IRBAll necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe authors confirm that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the article [and/or] its supplementary materials.