The cost of transfusing a unit of red blood cells: a costing model for Canadian hospital use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background No direct and thorough accounting of costs related to packed red blood cells ( PRBC s) has occurred in recent Canadian history. Our study sought to determine the cost accrued for a unit of PRBC within a Canadian hospital related to the inventory management, storage, testing, issuing and administration of the product. Methods An eight‐step costing model was developed to capture associated costs from the time of receipt at the hospital to the time of transfusion to a patient. Personnel, consumables and capital equipment costs within each step of the model were assessed using activity‐based accounting methods and German cost accounting principles. Results Based on 10,475 units, total in‐hospital cost per unit of PRBC was $243·10. Personnel, consumables and capital costs contributed 77·54%, 19·86% and 2·60% to this cost, respectively. Conclusion This study's in‐hospital costs of $243·10 summed with the $423·00 acquisition costs per unit PRBC from the blood supplier place the complete societal costs of one unit PRBC s at $666·10. This value is comparable, but lower than the majority of studies in the United States and Europe examining the societal costs of PRBC s.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".