MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981067009 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-119859

Frozen Plasma Transfusion Practices in Ontario-an Electronic Audit at Five Tertiary Care Hospitals to Inform a Knowledge Translation Strategy to Reduce Inappropriate Plasma Transfusions

2018· article· en· W2981067009 on OpenAlexaffabout
Leigh Minuk, Jeannie Callum

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBlood transfusion and management
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFresh frozen plasmaPartial thromboplastin timeProthrombin timeAdverse effectIntensive care medicinePopulationAuditEmergency medicineCoagulation testingCoagulationSurgeryInternal medicinePlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Frozen plasma transfusions are blood components that are frequently transfused to patients who are bleeding or require an invasive procedure and have a deficiency of coagulation factors detected on abnormal coagulation testing as inferred by a prolonged prothrombin time (PT), partial thromboplastin time (PTT), or increased international normalized ratio (INR). Despite published guidelines, supporting optimal plasma use, two recent provincial audits have suggested that 50% of the plasma transfused in the Province of Ontario is inappropriate. Inappropriate utilization of plasma has numerous adverse consequences for the recipient, including transfusion associated lung overload, allergic reactions, and delays necessary procedures while awaiting completion of the transfusion. In addition to the direct risks that inappropriate utilization of plasma has on the patient, it also has adverse consequences for the health care system; Given 98,521 units transfused in Canada in 2017, of which 50% are unnecessary, the annual revenue loss is estimated to be CAN$1.7 million. We will include all adult Inpatients receiving plasma during the time period January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. The study population will be subdivided into 5 groups of inappropriate plasma use that include: (1) patients with a normal INR≤1.5 and who were not actively bleeding, as indicated by no RBC transfusion; (2) patients with normal INR≤1.5 with moderate bleeding only; (3) elevated INR>1.5, without active bleeding or procedures; (4) no INR drawn before or after plasma infusion; or, (5) transfused a non-therapeutic dose of plasma, defined by less than or equal to 2 units. RBC transfusion requirement and the quantitative drop in hemoglobin will be used as a surrogate marker for bleeding. We plan to analyze the number and proportion of unnecessary plasma transfusions at five tertiary care centres by patient demographics, by triggering INR, and by the presence or absence of bleeding. As part of preliminary work to facilitate future audits and monitor appropriate plasma utilization in Ontario, there has been an Ontario Blood Utilization Data Strategy (ONBUDS) data extraction project where preliminary data has been extracted from blood transfusion databases, laboratory databases, and the discharge abstract database (DAD) for four institutions. We expect to confirm previous findings that 50% of the plasma transfused in Ontario is transfused inappropriately. Based on the preliminary ONBUDS data, it was found that the majority of inappropriate plasma transfusions were in the areas of cardiac surgery, orthopedic surgery, intensive care and gastroenterology. This study will inform a large quality improvement study aimed at reducing unnecessary plasma transfusion. The long-term goal is to develop an alternative electronic auditing strategy that is more comprehensive, faster, and more cost efficient than the historical annual Provincial audit which requires manual chart reviews by physicians, nurses and technologists. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicBlood transfusion and management→French-language works237,207→