Reducing Unnecessary Transfusions of RBCs in Inpatients Admitted Across Niagara Health Community Hospitals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Blood products are scarce resources. Audits on the use of red blood cells (RBCs) in tertiary centers have repeatedly highlighted inappropriate use. Earlier retrospective audit at our local community hospitals has demonstrated that only 85% and 54% of all requests met Choosing Wisely Canada guidelines for pre-transfusion hemoglobin (Hb) of 80 g/L or less and single unit, respectively. We sought to improve RBC utilization by 15% over a period of 12 months (meeting Choosing Wisely Canada criteria of pre-transfusion Hb ≤80g/L by >80% and single-unit transfusion by >65%). METHODS: Following repeated PDSA (Plan-Do-Study-Act) cycles, we implemented educational strategies, prospective transfusion medicine (TM) technologist-led screening of orders, and an RBC order set. RESULTS: The 3-month median percentages of appropriate RBC use for pre-transfusion Hb and single unit (September-November 2021) across all 3 hospitals were 90% and 71%, respectively. Overall, the rate of appropriate RBCs based on pre-transfusion Hb remained above target (>80%), with minimal improvement across all hospitals (median percentage at pre- and post-technologist screening periods of 87% and 90%, respectively). The median percentage of appropriate RBCs based on single-unit transfusion orders has improved across all Niagara Health hospitals with sustained targets (3-month median percentage at pre- and post-technologist screening and most recent time periods of 54%, 56%, and 71%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: We have taken a collaborative, multifaceted approach to optimizing utilization of RBCs across the Niagara Health hospitals. The rates of appropriate RBC use were comparable with the provincial and national accreditation benchmark standards. In particular, the TM technologist-led screening was effective in producing sustained improvement with respect to single-unit transfusion. One of the balancing outcomes was increasing workload on technologists. Local and provincial efforts are needed to facilitate recruitment and retention of laboratory technologists, especially in community hospitals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".