Documenting a transfusion: how well is it done?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Current practice in transfusion medicine promotes clear documentation of transfusion-related events including the fact that the patient has been informed of the related risks and benefits. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective review of 1005 patient charts was carried out to determine documentation. RESULTS: Most patients were from general surgery (10.8%) and cardiac surgery (14.1%). In 75 percent of cases the physician had not documented that any discussion had occurred regarding the risks and/or benefits or alternatives. Only 12 percent of charts included information that the patient was subsequently told what blood components were given to them. The discharge summary recorded transfusion information in 32.1 percent of cases whereas the consult note had this information in 26.3 percent. Chart records matched the transfusion medicine records in 60.6 percent of cases. The most common error was in the blood unit identification number. CONCLUSIONS: While accepted in theory, the practice of documenting patient information on transfusion is not well done.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.005 | 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".