|Home | About | Journals | Submit | Contact Us | Français|
The medicolegal implications of the Rashid et al. findings need to be considered by the ‘DVT-unaware clinicians’ in this study.1 There have been medico-legal claims in surgical patients resulting from a failure to provide venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis that have been settled in favour of the Claimant.2,3 These were successful when it was shown that a patient with identifiable risk factors, who developed a DVT/PE following surgery, had not undergone risk assessment and/or received appropriate prophylaxis. Although Rashid et al. have not stated whether any of their study group went onto develop a DVT/PE, it has been reported that 10% of hospital deaths are a result of VTE; and that many of these should be preventable deaths.4
Only 30% of medical patients in the high-risk group (which includes history of previous VTE) reported received prophylaxis! Potential claims from medical patients who developed an in-hospital VTE could be difficult to defend if they were not undergoing VTE risk assessment and did not receive appropriate prophylaxis. This should be considered by the ‘DVT-unaware clinicians’.
Competing interests JHS is involved in the development of a food supplement, zinapin, for preventing travel thrombosis.