Developing clinical performance indicators for pre-hospital blood transfusion: The Thames Valley Air Ambulance approach.

OBJECTIVE: In this article, we describe how we developed and validated key performance indicators (KPIs) for pre-hospital blood transfusion and offer suggestions for other organisations wishing to develop performance metrics. BACKGROUND: KPIs are metrics that compare actual care against an ideal structure, process or outcome standard. An increasing number of UK-based pre-hospital critical care services now carry blood components to enable pre-hospital blood transfusion. METHODS: A working group of pre-hospital physicians and paramedics was formed to create and validate performance indicators that reflected a high-quality pre-hospital transfusion. This was performed by literature searching and reviewing consensus documents that guide the best practice and then adjusting the indicators as the process evolved. RESULTS: Throughout the year, the performance against the domains was monitored monthly and outputs communicated within the clinical staff of the organisation; at the end of the year, the domains were amended. The final list of performance indicators was as follows: (a) rationale for transfusion documented in the notes; (b) rationale for transfusion in line with Thames Valley Air Ambulance blood transfusion guideline; (c) aggressive management of hypothermia; (d) tranexamic acid administered within an hour of injury; (e) evidence of bleeding in hospital; (f) monitoring of adverse effects of blood transfusion; (g) overall-was the use of blood justified; and (h) no units wasted this month. CONCLUSIONS: This study has shown that it is feasible to devise and implement clinical performance indicators for pre-hospital blood transfusion and that their use has increased the focus on this important area.

Opioid analgesia on the battlefield: a retrospective review of data from Operation HERRICK.

BACKGROUND: Acute pain secondary to trauma is commonly encountered on the battlefield. The use of morphine to manage pain during combat has been well established since the 19th century. Despite this, there is relatively little research on analgesia use in this environment. This study aims to review the use and complications of morphine and other opioids during Operation HERRICK. METHODS: A database search of the Joint Theatre Trauma Registry was completed looking for all incidences of morphine, fentanyl or naloxone use from February 2007 to September 2014. Microsoft Excel was used to analyse the results. RESULTS: Opioid analgesia was administered to 5801 casualties. Morphine was administered 6742 times to 3808 patients. Fentanyl was administered 9672 times to 4318 patients. Naloxone was used 18 times on 14 patients, giving a complication rate of 0.24%. Opioid doses prior to naloxone administration range from 0 to 72 mg of morphine and from 0 to 100 mcg of fentanyl. Four casualties (two local civilians and two coalition forces) received naloxone despite no recorded opioids being administered. Opium abuse was prevalent among the local population in Afghanistan, and this could explain the rationale behind two local national casualties receiving naloxone without any documented opioids being given. CONCLUSION: The use of opioids in a battlefield environment is extremely safe. Complication rates are similar to previously published data which is reassuring. The efficacy of different opioids was not covered by this study, and further analysis is required, particularly following the introduction of oral transmucosal fentanyl citrate and the availability of novel non-opioid analgesics.