Modelling the outcomes of different red blood cell transfusion strategies for the treatment of traumatic haemorrhage in the prehospital setting in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The limited supply and increasing demand of group O RhD-negative red blood cells (RBCs) have resulted in other transfusion strategies being explored by blood services that carry potential risks but may still provide an overall benefit to patients. Our aim was to analyse the potential economic benefits of prehospital transfusion (PHT) against no PHT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The impact of three PHT strategies (RhD-negative RBC, RhD-positive RBC and no transfusion) on quality-adjusted-life-years (QALYs) of all United Kingdom trauma patients in a given year and the subset of patients considered most at risk (RhD-negative females <50 years old), was modelled. RESULTS: For the entire cohort and the subset of patients, transfusing RhD-negative RBCs generated the most QALYs (141,899 and 2977, respectively), followed by the RhD-positive RBCs (141,879.8 and 2958.8 respectively), and no prehospital RBCs (119,285 and 2503 respectively). The QALY difference between RhD-negative and RhD-positive policies was smaller (19.2, both cohorts) than RhD-positive and no RBCs policies in QALYs term (22,600 all cohort, 470 for a subset), indicating that harms from transfusing RhD-positive RBCs are lower than harms associated with no RBC transfusion. A survival increase from PHT of 0.02% (entire cohort) and 0.7% (subset cohort) would still make the RhD-positive strategy better in QALYs terms than no PHT. CONCLUSION: While the use of RhD-positive RBCs carries risks, the benefits measured in QALYs are higher than if no PHT are administered, even for women of childbearing potential. Group O RhD-positive RBCs could be considered when there is a national shortage of RhD-negative RBCs.

Impact of a telephone-first consultation system in general practice.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: Increasing pressure on general practice prompts innovative change in service organisation. This study sought to evaluate the impact of introducing a telephone-first consultation system in a socioeconomically deprived population. STUDY DESIGN: An interrupted time series of preplanned outcomes for 2 years before and 1 year postintroduction of a telephone-first system was used to measure the volume and type of general practitioner (GP) consultations and the number of patients consulted per year. Emergency department (ED) and GP out-of-hours attendances, the number of outpatient referrals, and the number of requests for laboratory tests were measured as secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The telephone-first system was associated with a 20% increase in total GP consultations (telephone and face-to-face, effect estimate at 12 months, p=0.001). Face-to-face consultations decreased by 39% (p<0.001), while telephone consultations increased by 131% (p<0.001). The volume of individual patient requests for a GP consultation and the number of treatment room nurse consultations did not change. Secondary outcome measures showed no change in hospital outpatient referrals, number of requests for laboratory tests, and ED or GP out-of-hours attendances. CONCLUSIONS: A telephone-first system in a deprived urban general practice can decrease delays to GP-patient contacts. The number of patients seeking a medical intervention did not differ irrespective of the consultation system used. The telephone-first system did not affect GP out-of-hours, laboratory investigations or secondary care contacts.