A prospective multi‐faceted interventional study of blood bank technologist screening of red blood cell transfusion orders: The <scp>START</scp> study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfusion of red blood cells (RBC) is a common procedure, which when prescribed inappropriately can result in adverse patient outcomes. This study sought to determine the impact of a multi-faceted intervention on unnecessary RBC transfusions at hospitals with a baseline appropriateness below 90%. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A prospective medical chart audit of RBC transfusions was conducted across 15 hospitals. For each site, 10 RBCs per month transfused to inpatients were audited for a 5-month pre- and 10-month post-intervention period, with each transfusion adjudicated for appropriateness based on pre-set criteria. Hospitals with appropriateness rates below 90% underwent a 3-month intervention which included: adoption of standardized RBC guidelines, staff education, and prospective transfusion order screening by blood bank technologists. Proportions of RBC transfusions adjudicated as appropriate and the total number of RBC units transfused per month in the pre- and post-intervention period were examined. RESULTS: Over the 15-month audit period, at the 13 hospital sites with a baseline appropriateness below 90%, 1950 patients were audited of which 81.2% were adjudicated as appropriate. Proportions of appropriateness and single-unit orders increased from 73.5% to 85% and 46.2% to 68.2%, respectively from pre- to post-intervention (P < .0001). Pre- and post-transfusion hemoglobin levels and the total number of RBCs transfused decreased from baseline (P < .05). The median pre-transfusion hemoglobin decreased from a baseline of 72.0 g/L to 69.0 g/L in the post-intervention period (P < .0001). RBC transfusions per acute inpatient days decreased significantly in intervention hospitals, but not in control hospitals (P < .001). The intervention had no impact on patient length of stay, need for intensive care support, or in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: This multifaceted intervention demonstrated a marked improvement in RBC transfusion appropriateness and reduced overall RBC utilization without impacts on patient safety.
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 | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".