Educating the next frontier of transfusionists: a transfusion camp pilot program for nurse practitioners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion is common and potentially lifesaving but is associated with risk and overuse. Nurse practitioners (NPs) in multidisciplinary care teams are increasingly expanding their scope of practice to transfusion medicine (TM). Resources aimed at NPs are lacking, and little is known about NP TM knowledge. Thus, we developed a pilot TM curriculum for NP credentialing and assessed its impact. METHODS: NP leads and TM directors adapted the successful Canadian Transfusion Camp for medical postgraduate trainees into a 3-day curriculum for NPs. Two modalities were used to assess the pilot: 1) a participant demographics survey and needs assessment; and 2) the validated BEST-TEST knowledge assessment exam administered before and after the course. RESULTS: Of the 23 volunteer participants, the majority reported prescribing blood products within the last year, primarily red blood cells. Minimal opportunities to undertake continuing medical education in TM were identified. NPs often used preprinted order forms, consultation with physicians sharing care, or local fact sheets to guide transfusion; rather than TM physician consultation or guidelines. Exam scores significantly improved after the course (before, 35.2% vs. after, 50.3%; p = 0.005), suggesting average initial knowledge being below medical postgraduate trainee-level improving to postgraduate trainee level. Questions on appropriate transfusion triggers and correct recipient identification were most correctly answered; and responses to transfusion reaction questions required improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our needs assessment suggests that TM resources for NPs are relevant but lacking. Our initiative supports the generalizability, scalability, and effectiveness of the Transfusion Camp program. Further implementation, refinement, and future impact assessments are required.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".