Correlation of the Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test with clinical transfusion practice.

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY
Transfusion Pub Date : 2024-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1111/trf.18035
Bryan Tordon, Harley Meirovich, Amie Malkin, Katerina Pavenski, Amy Moorehead, Lette Ginsborg, Samia Saeed, Nadine Shehata, Jeannie Callum, Christine Cserti-Gazdewich, Lani Lieberman, Jacob Pendergrast, Yulia Lin
{"title":"Correlation of the Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test with clinical transfusion practice.","authors":"Bryan Tordon, Harley Meirovich, Amie Malkin, Katerina Pavenski, Amy Moorehead, Lette Ginsborg, Samia Saeed, Nadine Shehata, Jeannie Callum, Christine Cserti-Gazdewich, Lani Lieberman, Jacob Pendergrast, Yulia Lin","doi":"10.1111/trf.18035","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>It is uncertain how transfusion knowledge translates to practice. The purpose of the study was to determine if higher scores on a validated Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test were associated with transfusion order appropriateness.</p><p><strong>Study design and methods: </strong>Eligible participants included postgraduate trainees and faculty physicians who had prescribed at least four transfusion orders in the preceding 6 months at two hospitals. Participant data and knowledge were collected using a web-based questionnaire with a validated Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment tool. The most recent 4-10 consecutive transfusion orders per prescriber were independently dually adjudicated for appropriateness based on published criteria. The primary outcome was the correlation between the score on six questions on red blood cells (RBCs), platelets (PLTs), and plasma from the validated test and the percentage order appropriateness. Generalized linear regression was conducted to determine if factors (sex, specialty, participation in Transfusion Camp, previous transfusion education, self-rated knowledge) were associated with appropriate orders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Seventy-four participants (45 trainees, 29 faculty; 31 females, 43 males) completed the test. Median score was 66.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 50.0, 83.3) for six questions on RBCs, PLTs, and plasma transfusions. Of 546 transfusion orders adjudicated, appropriateness was 90.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.9%-93.0%). The correlation between prescriber test scores and order appropriateness was very weak (r = -.08). In multivariable analysis, female prescribers (p = .02) and beginner (vs. intermediate) self-rated knowledge (p = .01) were associated with higher transfusion appropriateness.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Transfusion knowledge test scores did not correlate with order appropriateness. Factors other than knowledge are key to understanding how to improve appropriate blood use.</p>","PeriodicalId":23266,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion","volume":" ","pages":"2371-2379"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11637248/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/trf.18035","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: It is uncertain how transfusion knowledge translates to practice. The purpose of the study was to determine if higher scores on a validated Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment test were associated with transfusion order appropriateness.

Study design and methods: Eligible participants included postgraduate trainees and faculty physicians who had prescribed at least four transfusion orders in the preceding 6 months at two hospitals. Participant data and knowledge were collected using a web-based questionnaire with a validated Transfusion Camp knowledge assessment tool. The most recent 4-10 consecutive transfusion orders per prescriber were independently dually adjudicated for appropriateness based on published criteria. The primary outcome was the correlation between the score on six questions on red blood cells (RBCs), platelets (PLTs), and plasma from the validated test and the percentage order appropriateness. Generalized linear regression was conducted to determine if factors (sex, specialty, participation in Transfusion Camp, previous transfusion education, self-rated knowledge) were associated with appropriate orders.

Results: Seventy-four participants (45 trainees, 29 faculty; 31 females, 43 males) completed the test. Median score was 66.7% (interquartile range [IQR]: 50.0, 83.3) for six questions on RBCs, PLTs, and plasma transfusions. Of 546 transfusion orders adjudicated, appropriateness was 90.7% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 87.9%-93.0%). The correlation between prescriber test scores and order appropriateness was very weak (r = -.08). In multivariable analysis, female prescribers (p = .02) and beginner (vs. intermediate) self-rated knowledge (p = .01) were associated with higher transfusion appropriateness.

Conclusion: Transfusion knowledge test scores did not correlate with order appropriateness. Factors other than knowledge are key to understanding how to improve appropriate blood use.

输血营知识评估测试与临床输血实践的相关性。
背景:输血知识如何转化为实践尚不确定。本研究旨在确定在经过验证的输血营知识评估测试中获得较高分数是否与输血单的适当性有关:符合条件的参与者包括两家医院在过去 6 个月中开具过至少四张输血单的研究生学员和教师。研究人员使用经过验证的输血营知识评估工具进行网络问卷调查,收集参与者的数据和知识。根据已公布的标准,对每位处方者最近 4-10 次连续输血医嘱的适当性进行独立的双重裁定。主要结果是验证测试中有关红细胞 (RBC)、血小板 (PLT) 和血浆的六个问题的得分与订单适当性百分比之间的相关性。我们还进行了广义线性回归,以确定各种因素(性别、专业、是否参加过输血营、以前是否接受过输血教育、自我评价是否了解输血知识)是否与下达适当医嘱有关:74名参与者(45名学员,29名教师;31名女性,43名男性)完成了测试。在有关 RBC、PLT 和血浆输注的六个问题上,得分中位数为 66.7%(四分位数间距 [IQR]:50.0, 83.3)。在裁定的 546 份输血单中,适当性为 90.7%(95% 置信区间 [CI]:87.9%-93.0%)。开药者测试得分与医嘱适当性之间的相关性很弱(r = -.08)。在多变量分析中,女性处方者(p = .02)和初级(与中级)自评知识(p = .01)与较高的输血适当性相关:结论:输血知识测试得分与处方适当性无关。结论:输血知识测试得分与订单适当性无关。要了解如何提高血液使用的适当性,知识以外的因素是关键。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Transfusion
Transfusion 医学-血液学
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
20.70%
发文量
426
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: TRANSFUSION is the foremost publication in the world for new information regarding transfusion medicine. Written by and for members of AABB and other health-care workers, TRANSFUSION reports on the latest technical advances, discusses opposing viewpoints regarding controversial issues, and presents key conference proceedings. In addition to blood banking and transfusion medicine topics, TRANSFUSION presents submissions concerning patient blood management, tissue transplantation and hematopoietic, cellular, and gene therapies.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信