Impact of Real-Time Clinical Decision Support on Blood Utilization and Outcomes in Hospitalized Patients with Solid Tumor Cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with cancer are frequently hospitalized, and anemia is a common complication of cancer care. Transfusion is often required and commonly occurs above guideline-supported thresholds. It was hypothesized that an educational intervention, combined with real-time clinical decision support (CDS), would reduce blood utilization among hospitalized solid tumor cancer patients without adversely affecting outcomes. METHODS: A retrospective, historical control analysis was conducted comparing transfusion utilization among hospitalized solid tumor cancer patients before and after implementation of the educational intervention and CDS. The primary outcome was receipt of red blood cell (RBC) transfusion. Secondary outcomes included total RBC transfusions per 100 inpatient-days, readmission, outpatient transfusion within seven days of discharge, inpatient mortality, and odds of transfer to the ICU. RESULTS: The odds of receiving a transfusion were significantly reduced in the postintervention cohort (odds ratio [OR] = 0.52, p = 0.005). Among patients receiving transfusion, there was no significant difference between groups in the number of RBC transfusions per 100 inpatient-days (incidence rate ratio = 0.87, p = 0.26). There were also no significant differences in readmission, outpatient transfusion within seven days of discharge, or inpatient mortality, though patients in the postintervention cohort had lower odds of ICU transfer (OR = 0.29, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: The combined use of an educational intervention and CDS in a hospitalized solid tumor cancer patient population was associated with lower blood utilization, similar patient outcomes, and unchanged short-term outpatient transfusion requirements. Hospitals should consider similar interventions to work toward appropriate resource allocation and mitigation of transfusion-associated risk in this patient population.

Survey of Provider Transfusion Practices for Oncology Patients in an Academic Medical Center.

OBJECTIVES: Hospitalized oncology patients receive care from a variety of professionals, each of whom plays a role in decisions related to blood transfusions. We sought to examine differences in transfusion practices based on professional role, years of experience, and patient clinical scenario. METHODS: We surveyed general medicine residents, hospitalists, and oncologists caring for inpatients at a large academic medical center between August 2013 and June 2014. Respondents reported transfusion practices in three different patient scenarios: a generally healthy patient, a patient with solid tumor malignancy, and a patient with hematologic malignancy. We also assessed rationale for transfusion practices. Bivariate comparisons of respondent characteristics and transfusion threshold were conducted using the Fisher exact test. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to assess the relative relations among professional role, years in practice, clinical scenario, and transfusion threshold <7 g/dL. RESULTS: Of 158 physicians surveyed, 97 responded (61.4%). In bivariate analyses, fewer oncologists than residents or hospitalists used a threshold of <7 g/dL, but the result was significant for only one of three scenarios. The multivariate odds of transfusing at a threshold <7 g/dL were significantly higher among nononcologists (odds ratio [OR] 2.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-4.28). Residents and practitioners in practice for <4 years also were more likely to use a threshold <7 g/dL (OR 1.82, 95% CI 0.99-3.33). Providers were less likely to use a restrictive threshold when an underlying malignancy was present (solid tumor OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.15-0.64; hematologic malignancy OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16-0.70). CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion thresholds differed based on professional role, years in practice, and patient scenario. Further research is needed to determine the optimal transfusion threshold for oncology patients.

The association between night or weekend admission and hospitalization-relevant patient outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Nights and weekends represent a potentially high-risk time for hospitalized patients. Data regarding night or weekend admission and its impact on outcomes is limited. We studied the association between night or weekend admission and outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed 857 admissions to the general medicine services from the emergency department (ED) at our tertiary care hospital for demographic information, time and day of admission, and hospitalization-relevant outcomes (length of stay [LOS], hospital charges, intensive care unit [ICU] transfer during hospitalization, repeat ED visit within 30 days, readmission within 30 days, and poor outcome [ICU transfer, cardiac arrest, or death] within the first 24 hours of admission). Outcomes were compared between groups using univariate and multivariate modeling. RESULTS: Complete data for analysis were available for 824 patients. A total of 58% of patients were admitted at night and 22% were admitted during the weekend. Patients admitted at night as compared to those admitted during the day had similar a LOS (4.1 vs. 4.3, P = 0.38), hospital charges (25,200 vs. 27,500, P = 0.17), ICU transfer during hospitalization (3% vs. 6%, P = 0.06), 30 day repeat ED visit (22% vs. 20%, P = 0.42), 30 day readmission (20% vs. 17%, P = 0.23), and poor outcomes within 24 hours of admission (1% vs. 2%, P = 0.15). Patients admitted during the weekend as compared to those admitted during the week had lower hospital charges and lower likelihood of an ICU transfer but were otherwise similar. CONCLUSION: Night or weekend admission was not associated with worse hospitalization-relevant outcomes at our tertiary care hospital.