Florence Oyekan, Montasir Ahmed, Catherine Booth, Louise Bowles, Ollie Djurdjevic, Yan Feng, Kirsty Hancock, Suzanne Makki, Helinor McAleese, Josephine McCullagh, Khin Mon, Michael F Murphy, Simon J Stanworth, Nathan Proudlove, Laura Green
{"title":"Staff satisfaction with the use of bedside electronic transfusion checks at three hospitals in London.","authors":"Florence Oyekan, Montasir Ahmed, Catherine Booth, Louise Bowles, Ollie Djurdjevic, Yan Feng, Kirsty Hancock, Suzanne Makki, Helinor McAleese, Josephine McCullagh, Khin Mon, Michael F Murphy, Simon J Stanworth, Nathan Proudlove, Laura Green","doi":"10.1111/vox.70282","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>Bedside transfusion errors, especially positive patient identification (PPID), are a risk to patient safety. Bedside electronic transfusion checks (BETC), using barcode-enabled personal digital assistants (PDAs), are recommended to improve safety and efficiency. This study assessed staff satisfaction with BETC versus manual transfusion checks in three large London hospitals. The surveys aimed to compare clinical staff satisfaction with BETC versus the manual system.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted immediately after training and 6 months after routine BETC use. The initial (21 questions) and follow-up (15 questions) surveys assessed usability, accuracy, workflow efficiency and patient care impact. Responses were collected via Microsoft Forms and analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression, adjusting for job role, experience and hospitals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 2085 staff completed the initial survey (55% response) and 514 the follow-up (13%), predominantly nurses (75%). For group and screen (G&S) labelling, ratings of 'ease of use' and 'accuracy' improved significantly between surveys, while perceived impact on reducing mislabelling remained consistently high (96.2% vs. 94.7%). Compared with manual checks, BETC was rated significantly by clinicians for ease of use (89% → 94%) and accuracy (89% → 95%; both p < 0.001). Improvements were also observed for the time saved by clinical staff (75% → 89%), patient care (77% → 89%), fewer nurses required (79% → 91%) and traceability (80% → 87%), all statistically significant (p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>BETC was associated with significantly greater clinical staff satisfaction than manual transfusion checks, providing large-scale evidence for their adoption to enhance transfusion safety, efficiency and staff experience.</p>","PeriodicalId":23631,"journal":{"name":"Vox Sanguinis","volume":" ","pages":"1201-1209"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2026-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13453916/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Vox Sanguinis","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/vox.70282","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/5/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and objectives: Bedside transfusion errors, especially positive patient identification (PPID), are a risk to patient safety. Bedside electronic transfusion checks (BETC), using barcode-enabled personal digital assistants (PDAs), are recommended to improve safety and efficiency. This study assessed staff satisfaction with BETC versus manual transfusion checks in three large London hospitals. The surveys aimed to compare clinical staff satisfaction with BETC versus the manual system.
Materials and methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted immediately after training and 6 months after routine BETC use. The initial (21 questions) and follow-up (15 questions) surveys assessed usability, accuracy, workflow efficiency and patient care impact. Responses were collected via Microsoft Forms and analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression, adjusting for job role, experience and hospitals.
Results: A total of 2085 staff completed the initial survey (55% response) and 514 the follow-up (13%), predominantly nurses (75%). For group and screen (G&S) labelling, ratings of 'ease of use' and 'accuracy' improved significantly between surveys, while perceived impact on reducing mislabelling remained consistently high (96.2% vs. 94.7%). Compared with manual checks, BETC was rated significantly by clinicians for ease of use (89% → 94%) and accuracy (89% → 95%; both p < 0.001). Improvements were also observed for the time saved by clinical staff (75% → 89%), patient care (77% → 89%), fewer nurses required (79% → 91%) and traceability (80% → 87%), all statistically significant (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: BETC was associated with significantly greater clinical staff satisfaction than manual transfusion checks, providing large-scale evidence for their adoption to enhance transfusion safety, efficiency and staff experience.
期刊介绍:
Vox Sanguinis reports on important, novel developments in transfusion medicine. Original papers, reviews and international fora are published on all aspects of blood transfusion and tissue transplantation, comprising five main sections:
1) Transfusion - Transmitted Disease and its Prevention:
Identification and epidemiology of infectious agents transmissible by blood;
Bacterial contamination of blood components;
Donor recruitment and selection methods;
Pathogen inactivation.
2) Blood Component Collection and Production:
Blood collection methods and devices (including apheresis);
Plasma fractionation techniques and plasma derivatives;
Preparation of labile blood components;
Inventory management;
Hematopoietic progenitor cell collection and storage;
Collection and storage of tissues;
Quality management and good manufacturing practice;
Automation and information technology.
3) Transfusion Medicine and New Therapies:
Transfusion thresholds and audits;
Haemovigilance;
Clinical trials regarding appropriate haemotherapy;
Non-infectious adverse affects of transfusion;
Therapeutic apheresis;
Support of transplant patients;
Gene therapy and immunotherapy.
4) Immunohaematology and Immunogenetics:
Autoimmunity in haematology;
Alloimmunity of blood;
Pre-transfusion testing;
Immunodiagnostics;
Immunobiology;
Complement in immunohaematology;
Blood typing reagents;
Genetic markers of blood cells and serum proteins: polymorphisms and function;
Genetic markers and disease;
Parentage testing and forensic immunohaematology.
5) Cellular Therapy:
Cell-based therapies;
Stem cell sources;
Stem cell processing and storage;
Stem cell products;
Stem cell plasticity;
Regenerative medicine with cells;
Cellular immunotherapy;
Molecular therapy;
Gene therapy.