Staff satisfaction with the use of bedside electronic transfusion checks at three hospitals in London.

IF 1.6 4区 医学 Q3 HEMATOLOGY
Vox Sanguinis Pub Date : 2026-08-01 Epub Date: 2026-05-06 DOI:10.1111/vox.70282
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.

伦敦三家医院的员工对床边电子输血检查的满意度。
背景和目的:床边输血错误,特别是阳性患者识别(PPID),对患者安全构成风险。建议使用支持条形码的个人数字助理(pda)进行床边电子输血检查(BETC),以提高安全性和效率。本研究评估了伦敦三家大型医院的员工对BETC和人工输血检查的满意度。调查的目的是比较临床工作人员对BETC和手动系统的满意度。材料和方法:训练后立即和常规使用BETC 6个月后进行横断面调查。初步调查(21个问题)和后续调查(15个问题)评估了可用性、准确性、工作流程效率和对患者护理的影响。通过Microsoft Forms收集反馈,并使用描述性统计和逻辑回归进行分析,调整工作角色,经验和医院。结果:共有2085名员工完成了初步调查(55%),514名员工完成了随访(13%),其中以护士为主(75%)。对于组和屏幕(G&S)标签,“易用性”和“准确性”的评级在调查之间显着提高,而对减少错误标签的感知影响仍然很高(96.2%对94.7%)。与人工检查相比,临床医生对BETC的易用性(89%→94%)和准确性(89%→95%)的评价显著高于人工检查,p结论:BETC与临床工作人员满意度显著高于人工检查,为采用BETC提高输血安全、效率和工作人员体验提供了大量证据。
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
Vox Sanguinis
Vox Sanguinis 医学-血液学
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
11.10%
发文量
156
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书