{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02063273727647868, 'fraction_numerical': 0.001375515818431912, 'mean_word_length': 5.353711790393013, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Prevention of venous thromboembolism--what have we learned and how well are we doing?].

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, awareness regarding thromboprophylactic treatment for hospitalized patients at risk has grown significantly. Large trials incorporating thousands of patients published in recent years have proved that prophylactic treatment is effective and reduces the rates of hospital-acquired venous thromboembolism.


PATIENTS AND METHODS
Two cross-sectional studies held in medical and general surgery wards have found that, similar to other medical centers worldwide, hospitalized patients are older, have many medical problems, and suffer from reduced mobility. These risk factors exist in approximately half of the patients in medical wards and should lead to prophylactic therapy, however only 22% of such high risk patients actually received treatment. In non-operated general surgery patients, the rate of prophylaxis use is even lower. In patients after surgery, the rate of use is higher but not optimal. Although in a survey most of the directors in medical and surgical wards claimed that prophylaxis is an important issue, and that they support prophylaxis regimens, the rate of prophylaxis was generally low and unsatisfying.


CONCLUSION
Patients hospitalized at medical and surgical wards are at risk of acquiring venous thromboembolism, however rates of prophylaxis are low. Methods to improve prophylaxis rates should be adopted.