Using blood wisely in oncology patients: An institutional experience implementing Choosing Wisely Canada restrictive transfusion practices.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
382 Background: Using Blood Wisely is a national Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) initiative that challenges hospitals to benchmark themselves on evidence-informed restrictive transfusion strategies, with the aim to decrease inappropriate red blood cell (RBC) transfusions in Canada. We previously assessed transfusion practices among oncology patients at BC Cancer Vancouver during a 12-month period. Here we present the results of a second audit, after implementation of quality improvement (QI) interventions. Methods: BC Cancer Vancouver RBC transfusion records were obtained for the periods of October 2019-September 2020 and April 2021-March 2022. The percentage of transfusions that were single-unit or for hemoglobin (Hg) ≤80 g/L were measured to assess adherence to CWC targets of ≥65% and ≥80%, respectively, for these metrics. QI interventions were implemented after the first audit, including staff education (grand rounds presentation, sitewide email bulletin) and direct engagement of ordering physicians by nursing staff. Uni- and multivariate analyses were used to test associations between patient characteristics and transfusion outcomes. Results: Single-unit transfusions increased from 41% in inpatients (49/120) and 12% in outpatients (69/586) in the first audit, to 86% (126/146) in inpatients ( P<0.001) and 34% (170/495) in outpatients ( P<0.001) in the second audit. Transfusions for Hg ≤80 g/L increased from 79% (95/120) in inpatients and 66% (384/586) in outpatients, to 93% (136/146) in inpatients ( P=0.001) and 78% (384/495) in outpatients ( P<0.001). Patient factors associated with restrictive transfusion practices included inpatient status and having a hematological malignancy. Conclusions: In the face of fluctuating RBC shortages, interventions aimed at high-use populations like oncology patients are crucial to reducing transfusion overuse. Through education and prescriber engagement, we successfully reduced the rate of inappropriate RBC transfusions at our institution and achieved the status of a designated Using Blood Wisely Hospital.[Table: see text]
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".