AN AUDIT OF THROMBOPHILIA SCREENING IN A SINGLE PAEDIATRIC TERTIARY REFERRAL CENTRE
Abstract number: P-W-471
Watt1 S.G., Natarajan1 S., Wynn2 R., Will2 A., Grainger2 J.
11Haematology, Manchester Royal Infirmary 22Haematology, Royal Manchester Childrens hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom
How-to-cite Watt SG, Natarajan S, Wynn R, Will A, Grainger J. AN AUDIT OF THROMBOPHILIA SCREENING IN A SINGLE PAEDIATRIC TERTIARY REFERRAL CENTRE. J Thromb Haemost 2007; 5 Supplement 2: P-W-471
Introduction: We have performed an audit of thrombophilia screening undertaken at our centre were being performed within the current guidelines and whether the results influenced management.
Methods: This is a retrospective audit of thrombophilia screen requests from 2001-2005. It is based on a review of case notes and thrombophilia results available in those notes and any actions taken on them. Screens were considered appropriate if they were performed for stroke, DVT or a strong family history.
Results: We were able to obtain a total of 60 of the 85 sets of case notes requested. There were 28 males and 32 females. Median age was 6 years. 60% of screens were requested by neurology. The most common reason for thrombophilia screening was cerebro-vascular thrombosis.
Only 8% not under the care of a haematologist had recorded discussion with a haematology clinician prior to screening. 58% of screens were considered appropriate, but only 80% of these had results documented in either handwritten or the results section of the case notes. 33% of screens we had no proven thrombosis of any sort. 12% had other pathological reasons for an event. Only 3.3% of all screened patients had all test results recorded that would be considered a standard "thrombophilia screen". Only 3.3% of all screened patients had abnormal results, 1 homozygous V Leiden and one heterozygous prothrombin gene mutation. There were 20% where repeat screening of protein C or S was suggested due to borderline or low results were it was not carried out. Factor V Leiden was only carried out in 56.1% of cases.
Conclusions: A large proportion of screening is inappropriate. The screen is poorly carried out and results poorly recorded in our centre. As a result we cannot draw any conclusions about the levels of thrombophilia in this population. There was no evidence of any alteration in management as a result of these screens.
To cite this abstract use the following format:
Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis 2007; Volume 5, Supplement 2: abstract number
||XXIst ISTH Congress
| Back to top