Consent for blood transfusion: Do patients understand the risks and benefits?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood transfusion is a frequent medical intervention in hospitals. The benefits of, risks of and alternatives to blood transfusions are not consistently understood by patients. The objective of this study was to assess gaps in knowledge and comfort with the current process of consenting patients for blood transfusions. A standardised video regarding the risk and benefits of blood transfusions was developed and feedback regarding this tool was assessed. METHODS: After informed consent had been obtained, 25 patients receiving their first transfusion at a single academic centre were asked to complete a survey, watch a standardised educational video and complete a follow-up survey. RESULTS: The patient survey revealed that the information recollected from informed consent discussions was variable and incomplete. After the informed consent discussion, the majority of patients were comfortable with having a blood transfusion, although one-third did express concerns or worry about having a blood transfusion. After viewing the video, patients felt that the video improved their understanding of the risks (7·3 of 10), benefits (6·9 of 10) and alternatives (7·1 of 10) to transfusion, but it did not change their comfort with blood transfusion consent. CONCLUSION: Patients experienced a variable informed consent process prior to blood transfusion. Although the video improved their understanding of risks, it did not improve patient comfort towards giving consent for transfusion as the level of comfort was already high. The video is available online (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxaPnLkgh-0) as an optional resource for patients (and physicians) who wish to receive standardised and accurate information about blood transfusions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".