National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusion: report on the 2014 audit of patient information and consent.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess current practices around obtaining consent for blood transfusion and provision of patient information in hospitals across the UK and identify areas for improvement. BACKGROUND: Recommendations from the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Blood, Tissues and Organs (SaBTO) (2011) state that valid consent should be obtained for blood transfusion and documented in clinical records. A standardised source of information should be available to patients. Practices in relation to this have historically been inconsistent. METHODS: The consent process was studied in hospitals across the UK over a 3-month period in 2014 by means of an audit of case notes and simultaneous surveys of patients and staff. RESULTS: In total, 2784 transfusion episodes were reviewed across 164 hospital sites. 85% of sites had a policy on consent for transfusion. Consent was documented in 43% of case notes. 68% of patients recalled being given information on benefits of transfusion, 38% on risks and 8% on alternatives and 28% reported receiving an information leaflet. In total, 85% of staff stated they had explained the reason for transfusion, but only 65% had documented this. 41% of staff had received training specifically on transfusion consent in the last 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need to improve clinical practice in obtaining valid consent for transfusion in line with existing national guidelines and local Trust policies, with emphasis on documentation within clinical records. Provision of patient information is an area particularly highlighted for action, and transfusion training for clinicians should be strengthened.

Patient blood management knowledge and practice among clinicians from seven European university hospitals: a multicentre survey.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of this survey was to evaluate the knowledge about Patient Blood Management (PBM) principles and practices amongst clinicians working in seven European hospitals participating in a European Blood Alliance (EBA) project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A web-based questionnaire was sent to 4952 clinicians working in medical, surgery and anaesthesiology disciplines. The responses were analysed, and the overall results as well as a comparison between hospitals are presented. RESULTS: A total of 788 responses (16%) were obtained. About 24% of respondents were not aware of a correlation between preoperative anaemia (POA) and perioperative morbidity and mortality. For 22%, treatment of POA was unlikely to favourably influence morbidity and mortality even before surgery with expected blood loss. More than half of clinicians did not routinely treat POA. 29%, when asked which is the best way to treat deficiency anaemia preoperatively, answered that they did not have sufficient knowledge and 5% chose to 'do nothing'. Amongst those who treated POA, 38% proposed red cell transfusion prior to surgery as treatment. Restrictive haemoglobin triggers for red blood cell transfusion, single unit policy and reduction of number and volumes of blood samples for diagnostic purposes were only marginally implemented. CONCLUSION: Overall, the responses indicated poor knowledge about PBM. Processes to diagnose and treat POA were not generally and homogeneously implemented. This survey should provide further impetus to implement programmes to improve knowledge and practice of PBM.

Patient Blood Management in Europe: surveys on top indications for red blood cell use and Patient Blood Management organization and activities in seven European university hospitals.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Patient Blood Management (PBM) in Europe is a working group of the European Blood Alliance with the initial objective to identify the starting position of the participating hospitals regarding PBM for benchmarking purposes, and to derive good practices in PBM from the experience and expertise in the participating teams with the further aim of implementing and strengthening these practices in the participating hospitals. METHODS: We conducted two surveys in seven university hospitals in Europe: Survey on top indications for red blood cell use regarding usage of red blood cells during 1 week and Survey on PBM organization and activities. RESULTS: A total of 3320 units of red blood cells were transfused in 1 week at the seven hospitals. Overall, 61% of red cell units were transfused to medical patients and 36% to surgical patients, although there was much variation between hospitals. The organization and activities of PBM in the seven hospitals were variable, but there was a common focus on optimizing the treatment of bleeding patients, monitoring the use of blood components and treatment of preoperative anaemia. CONCLUSION: Although the seven hospitals provide a similar range of clinical services, there was variation in transfusion rates between them. Further, there was variable implementation of PBM activities and monitoring of transfusion practice. These findings provide a baseline to develop joint action plans to further implement and strengthen PBM across a number of hospitals in Europe.

Platelet transfusions in haematology patients: are we using them appropriately?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A large proportion of all platelet components are given to haematology patients. As there are risks associated with their transfusion, costs associated with production, and shortages may occur, it is important that their use is appropriate. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The study was split into two parts, a survey to assess local practice guidelines and an assessment of platelet usage. A total of 123 hospitals completed the survey and 168 hospitals submitted data of 40 haematology patients over a 3-month period. RESULTS: The organizational survey found that 36% of hospitals routinely give prophylactic platelet transfusions to patients with long-term bone-marrow failure. Also, a significant minority of hospitals administer platelet transfusions if the platelet count is below a certain threshold prior to performing a bone-marrow aspirate (11%) or a bone-marrow aspirate and trephine (23%); both of these are contrary to UK platelet transfusion guidelines. Data were collected on a total of 3402 patients, of which 3296 cases were eligible for analysis. They received approximately 46% of all platelet components issued to participating hospitals in England during the study period. The majority (69%) of platelet transfusions were prophylactic; of these only 33% were given when the platelet count was ≤10×10(9)/l. Using an algorithm, based on current UK guidelines, 60% of prophylactic transfusions were appropriate, 6% could not be assessed and 34% were inappropriate. A total of 10% of all prophylactic transfusions were double the standard adult dose. CONCLUSIONS: There is considerable potential for decreased use of platelet transfusions with a consequent improvement in their appropriate use and cost reduction.

Cryoprecipitate for transfusion: which patients receive it and why? A study of patterns of use across three regions in England.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing interest in the use of fibrinogen concentrates, cryoprecipitate remains the major source of fibrinogen in England. OBJECTIVES: Understand patterns and indications for use of cryoprecipitate in hospitals from three English regions. METHOD/MATERIALS: Data collection over 3 months from adults, children and neonates receiving cryoprecipitate, including clinical scenario, indications, dose and levels of fibrinogen concentrations pre- and post-transfusion. RESULTS: Four hundred and twenty-three episodes of cryoprecipitate transfusion were analysed from 39 hospitals. Use varied from 0.1 to 4.9 units per 100 red cells transfused. The primary indication was haemorrhage [311 episodes (74%)]. The commonest clinical scenario in all age groups was cardiac surgery, followed by trauma in adults and critical/neonatal care for children. Pre-treatment fibrinogen levels were measured in 322 episodes. In 179 episodes, the level was ≥ 1.0 g L(-1) . CONCLUSION: Wide variation in practice and dose suggests inconsistent practice and uncertainty in the evidence informing optimal use of cryoprecipitate.

National comparative audit of blood use in elective primary unilateral total hip replacement surgery in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Blood is a scarce and expensive product. Although it may be life-saving, in recent years there has been an increased emphasis on the potential hazards of transfusion as well as evidence supporting the use of lower transfusion thresholds. Orthopaedic surgery accounts for some 10% of transfused red blood cells and evidence suggests that there is considerable variation in transfusion practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NHS Blood and Transplant, in collaboration with the Royal College of Physicians, undertook a national audit on transfusion practice. Each hospital was asked to provide information relating to 40 consecutive patients undergoing elective, primary unilateral total hip replacement surgery. The results were compared to indicators and standards. RESULTS: Information was analysed relating to 7465 operations performed in 223 hospitals. Almost all hospitals had a system for referring abnormal pre-operative blood results to a doctor and 73% performed a group-and-save rather than a cross-match before surgery. Of hospitals, 47% had a transfusion policy. In 73%, the policy recommended a transfusion threshold at a haemoglobin concentration of 8 g/dl or less. There was a wide variation in transfusion rate among hospitals. Of patients, 15% had a haemoglobin concentration less than 12 g/dl recorded in the 28 days before surgery and 57% of these patients were transfused compared to 20% with higher pre-operative values. Of those who were transfused, 7% were given a single unit and 67% two units. Of patients transfused two or more units during days 1-14 after surgery, 65% had a post transfusion haemoglobin concentration of 10 g/dl or more. CONCLUSIONS: Pre-operative anaemia, lack of availability of transfusion protocols and use of different thresholds for transfusion may have contributed to the wide variation in transfusion rate. Effective measures to identify and correct pre-operative anaemia may decrease the need for transfusion. A consistent, evidence-based, transfusion threshold should be used and transfusion of more than one unit should only be given if essential to maintain haemoglobin concentrations above this threshold.

Promoting safer blood transfusion practice in hospital.

Results from a national comparative audit of bedside transfusion practice show that patients in the UK are at risk of misidentification and poor monitoring when undergoing a blood transfusion. A commonly identified reason for poor compliance with guidelines from the British Committee for Standards in Haematology (BCSH et al 1999) is a lack of awareness of good transfusion practice (National Blood Service (NBS) 2005). This article discusses the implications of the audit findings for the administration of blood at the bedside and examines initiatives to support hospital staff in their efforts to improve blood transfusion safety.

National comparative audit of the use of platelet transfusions in the UK.

The objective of this national audit was to examine the use of platelet transfusions against audit standards developed from national guidelines. Hospitals were asked to provide data on 40 consecutive patients receiving platelet transfusions (15 haematology patients, 10 cardiac, 10 critical care and five in other clinical specialties). One hundred and eighty-seven UK hospitals participated, including 168/263 (64%) hospitals in England. A total of 4421 patients receiving platelet transfusions were audited. The reason for transfusion was documented in the medical records for 93% of transfusions and 57% were used for prophylaxis (in the absence of bleeding). Overall 3726/4421 (84%) of the transfusions were evaluable and 43% (1601/3726) were found to be non-compliant with the audit standards. A major non-compliance was failure to measure the platelet count before transfusion (29% of transfusions). Other non-compliances included the use of platelet transfusion in the absence of bleeding in 11% of cardiac surgery patients receiving platelet transfusions, the use of a threshold platelet count more than 10 x 10(9)/L for 60% of prophylactic platelet transfusions in haematology patients without risk factors indicating the need for a higher threshold, and a threshold platelet count more than 30 x 10(9)/L for 59% of prophylactic platelet transfusions in critical care. The reasons for the high rate of non-compliance were not explored in this audit, but this is a topic worthy of further study. The main recommendations were that hospitals should ensure there are written local guidelines for platelet transfusions, clinicians must be provided with training about their appropriate use, and hospitals should carry out regular audits of practice. More research should be carried out to develop the evidence base for the use of platelet transfusions, more detailed guidelines should be developed for platelet transfusions in critical care and cardiac surgery, and the audit should be repeated in about three years.

Build your own infection control link nurse: an innovative study day.

Infection control is everyone's business and it is important that all members of staff observe good infection control practice. An effective infection control link nurse system has been shown to support and develop this approach. The strength of ward-based infection control link nurses depends upon their effectiveness as role models and their ability to influence practice on their wards and beyond. In addition, the degree of respect they command from their peers and colleagues and the amount and quality of knowledge they possess is crucial. This paper describes an innovative approach taken in Mid-Essex, which allowed infection control link nurses to assess their capabilities and limitations in communicating with and influencing colleagues. In addition, we show how quantitative measures may be made available by this approach. Such measures may be used to explain to management how particular areas of infection control practice (e.g. the need for infection control link nurses to have more authority and more 'muscle') may be important.