Changing red blood cell transfusion practice in obstetrics and gynaecology: A before and after study of hospital‐wide education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess transfusion practices at a Canadian tertiary care center before and after a hospital-wide blood management educational campaign based on the Choosing Wisely toolkit. BACKGROUND: Red blood cell (RBC) transfusions are an essential intervention in obstetrics and gynaec ology (O&G). However, with limited guidelines outlining the appropriate use of RBC transfusions, clinicians routinely transfuse based on haemoglobin values and habits. METHODS/MATERIALS: We conducted a retrospective chart review of all patients who received a RBC transfusion while admitted under an O&G provider in two 12-month periods-before and after the intervention. The campaign consisted of Grand Rounds, formal and informal teaching, and posters placed within the hospital. We judged appropriateness from a set of criteria guided by the status of ongoing bleeding, pre-transfusion haemoglobin, and the number of units ordered simultaneously. RESULTS: Transfusion appropriateness was poor in pre- and post-intervention periods (46% vs. 51%, p = 0.59). The overall rate of RBC transfusion was reduced from 1.8% to 1.2% (83/4610 vs. 55/4618, p = 0.02) after the intervention. There was a 52% reduction in the total number of RBC units of transfused (229 vs. 111, p < 0.001), a 33% reduction in the number of patients transfused (83 vs. 55, p = 0.016), and fewer multiple-unit transfusions without reassessment (39 vs. 13, p = 0.005). CONCLUSION: RBC transfusion appropriateness remained low after a hospital-wide educational campaign. However, there was a marked decrease in overall transfusion use, reflecting the adoption of more restrictive transfusion practices. The low rate of transfusion appropriateness represents an opportunity for further improvement.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".