缩小差距：前瞻性分析血液申请表被拒绝和不完整的根本原因。

IF 1.4 4区医学 Q4 HEMATOLOGY

Transfusion Clinique et Biologique Pub Date : 2024-09-04 DOI:10.1016/j.tracli.2024.08.005

Shweta Ranjan, Nishith Nayan, Bankim Das, Rakesh Kumar, Saurabh Lahare, Neha Singh, Ruchi Sinha

{"title":"缩小差距：前瞻性分析血液申请表被拒绝和不完整的根本原因。","authors":"Shweta Ranjan, Nishith Nayan, Bankim Das, Rakesh Kumar, Saurabh Lahare, Neha Singh, Ruchi Sinha","doi":"10.1016/j.tracli.2024.08.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Blood request form (BRF) stands as a pivotal document in ensuring safe and effective blood transfusions within healthcare settings. Incomplete or erroneous data on BRF can heighten risk of adverse reactions and compromise patient safety. Aim of study was to assess level of completion of BRFs by clinicians and to evaluate root cause analysis (RCA) of incompleteness of BRFs and factors leading to their rejection.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>This prospective study was carried out from February 2024 to April 2024 on BRFs received in the blood centre. They were audited and RCA for factors leading to their incompleteness and rejection were analysed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Total number of BRFs received in blood centre was 14,468. 13,358 (92.3%) BRFs were accepted and 1,110 (7.7%) BRFs were rejected. 12,804 (95.85%) of accepted BRFs were incomplete. Weight was the most common missing parameter (89% {<em>n</em> = 11403}) while name of the requesting clinician was least common (2.5% {<em>n</em>-318}). 3.52% <em>n</em> = 510) BRFs were rejected due to mismatch in name and patient registration number on BRF and samples. 0.14% <em>n</em> = 21) BRFs were rejected due to hemolysed samples. RCA for incompleteness of BRFs showed that main reason was manpower (61–83%) while environment was least common (17–67%). RCA for rejection of BRFs showed that environment was most common cause (13.3–80.15%) while manpower was least common (9–19.85%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Regular audits and personnel training, and quality assurance measures can help identify and address deficiencies in BRF completion to enhance patient safety and reduce incidence of transfusion-related errors and complications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23262,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Clinique et Biologique","volume":"31 4","pages":"Pages 217-222"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bridging the gaps: A prospective analysis of root causes for rejection and incompleteness in blood requisition forms\",\"authors\":\"Shweta Ranjan, Nishith Nayan, Bankim Das, Rakesh Kumar, Saurabh Lahare, Neha Singh, Ruchi Sinha\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tracli.2024.08.005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Blood request form (BRF) stands as a pivotal document in ensuring safe and effective blood transfusions within healthcare settings. Incomplete or erroneous data on BRF can heighten risk of adverse reactions and compromise patient safety. Aim of study was to assess level of completion of BRFs by clinicians and to evaluate root cause analysis (RCA) of incompleteness of BRFs and factors leading to their rejection.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>This prospective study was carried out from February 2024 to April 2024 on BRFs received in the blood centre. They were audited and RCA for factors leading to their incompleteness and rejection were analysed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Total number of BRFs received in blood centre was 14,468. 13,358 (92.3%) BRFs were accepted and 1,110 (7.7%) BRFs were rejected. 12,804 (95.85%) of accepted BRFs were incomplete. Weight was the most common missing parameter (89% {<em>n</em> = 11403}) while name of the requesting clinician was least common (2.5% {<em>n</em>-318}). 3.52% <em>n</em> = 510) BRFs were rejected due to mismatch in name and patient registration number on BRF and samples. 0.14% <em>n</em> = 21) BRFs were rejected due to hemolysed samples. RCA for incompleteness of BRFs showed that main reason was manpower (61–83%) while environment was least common (17–67%). RCA for rejection of BRFs showed that environment was most common cause (13.3–80.15%) while manpower was least common (9–19.85%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Regular audits and personnel training, and quality assurance measures can help identify and address deficiencies in BRF completion to enhance patient safety and reduce incidence of transfusion-related errors and complications.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion Clinique et Biologique\",\"volume\":\"31 4\",\"pages\":\"Pages 217-222\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion Clinique et Biologique\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1246782024000971\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Clinique et Biologique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1246782024000971","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

导言：血液申请表（BRF）是确保医疗机构安全有效输血的关键文件。血液申请表上不完整或错误的数据会增加发生不良反应的风险，危及患者安全。本研究旨在评估临床医生填写 BRF 的水平，并对 BRF 不完整的根本原因分析（RCA）以及导致拒绝接受 BRF 的因素进行评估：这项前瞻性研究是在 2024 年 2 月至 2024 年 4 月期间对血液中心收到的 BRF 进行的。结果：2024 年 2 月至 2024 年 4 月期间，血液中心收到的 BRF 总数量为 1.5 万份：结果：血液中心共收到 14,468 份 BRF。血液中心共收到 14,468 份两年期报告，其中 13,358 份（92.3%）被接受，1,110 份（7.7%）被拒绝。在接受的 BRF 中，12,804 份（95.85%）不完整。体重是最常见的缺失参数（89% {n=11403}），而申请临床医生的姓名是最不常见的参数（2.5% {n-318}）。3.52%（n=510）的 BRF 因 BRF 和样本上的姓名和病人登记号不匹配而被拒绝。0.14%（n=21）的 BRF 因样本溶血而被拒收。BRF 不完整的 RCA 显示，主要原因是人力（61%-83%），而环境是最不常见的原因（17%-67%）。剔除 BRF 的 RCA 显示，环境是最常见的原因（13.3%-80.15%），而人力是最不常见的原因（9%-19.85%）：结论：定期审核和人员培训以及质量保证措施有助于发现和解决 BRF 完成过程中的不足之处，从而加强患者安全，减少输血相关错误和并发症的发生。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文本刊更多论文

Bridging the gaps: A prospective analysis of root causes for rejection and incompleteness in blood requisition forms

Introduction

Blood request form (BRF) stands as a pivotal document in ensuring safe and effective blood transfusions within healthcare settings. Incomplete or erroneous data on BRF can heighten risk of adverse reactions and compromise patient safety. Aim of study was to assess level of completion of BRFs by clinicians and to evaluate root cause analysis (RCA) of incompleteness of BRFs and factors leading to their rejection.

Materials and Methods

This prospective study was carried out from February 2024 to April 2024 on BRFs received in the blood centre. They were audited and RCA for factors leading to their incompleteness and rejection were analysed.

Results

Total number of BRFs received in blood centre was 14,468. 13,358 (92.3%) BRFs were accepted and 1,110 (7.7%) BRFs were rejected. 12,804 (95.85%) of accepted BRFs were incomplete. Weight was the most common missing parameter (89% {n = 11403}) while name of the requesting clinician was least common (2.5% {n-318}). 3.52% n = 510) BRFs were rejected due to mismatch in name and patient registration number on BRF and samples. 0.14% n = 21) BRFs were rejected due to hemolysed samples. RCA for incompleteness of BRFs showed that main reason was manpower (61–83%) while environment was least common (17–67%). RCA for rejection of BRFs showed that environment was most common cause (13.3–80.15%) while manpower was least common (9–19.85%).

Conclusion

Regular audits and personnel training, and quality assurance measures can help identify and address deficiencies in BRF completion to enhance patient safety and reduce incidence of transfusion-related errors and complications.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊

Transfusion Clinique et Biologique 医学-免疫学

CiteScore

2.50

自引率

11.80%

发文量

234

审稿时长

36 days

期刊介绍： Transfusion Clinique et Biologique, the official journal of the French Society of Blood Transfusion (SFTS): - an aid to training, at a European level - the only French journal indexed in the hematology and immunology sections of Current Contents Transfusion Clinique et Biologique spans fundamental research and everyday practice, with articles coming from both sides. Articles, reviews, case reports, letters to the editor and editorials are published in 4 editions a year, in French or in English, covering all scientific and medical aspects of transfusion: immunology, hematology, infectious diseases, genetics, molecular biology, etc. And finally, a convivial cross-disciplinary section on training and information offers practical updates. Readership: "Transfusers" are many and various: anesthetists, biologists, hematologists, and blood-bank, ICU and mobile emergency specialists...