Dataset Information

Administration Safety of Blood Products - Lessons Learned from a National Registry for Transfusion and Hemotherapy Practice.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Compared to blood component safety, the administration of blood may not be as safe as intended. The German Interdisciplinary Task Force for Clinical Hemotherapy (IAKH) specialized registry for administration errors of blood products was chosen for a detailed analysis of reports.

Methods

Voluntarily submitted critical incident reports (n = 138) from 2009 to 2013 were analyzed.

Results

Incidents occurred in the operation room (34.1%), in the ICU (25.2%), and in the peripheral ward (18.5%). Procedural steps with errors were administration to the patient (27.2%), indication and blood order (17.1%), patient identification (17.1%), and blood sample withdrawal and tube labeling (18.0%). Bedside testing (BST) of blood groups avoided errors in only 2.6%. Associated factors were routine work conditions (66%), communication error (36%), emergency case (26%), night or weekend team (39%), untrained personnel (19%). Recommendations addressed process and quality (n = 479) as well as structure quality (n = 314). In 189 instances, an IT solution would have helped to avoid the error.

Conclusions

The administration process is prone to errors at the patient assessment for the need to transfuse and the application of blood products to patients. BST is only detecting a minority of handling errors. According to the expert recommendations for practice improvement, the potential to improve transfusion safety by a technical solution is considerable.

SUBMITTER: Frietsch T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5597947 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundType 2 diabetes mellitus is preventable through lifestyle intervention. Diabetes prevention programmes (DPPs) aim to deliver prevention-based behaviour change interventions to reduce incidence. Such programmes vary from usual primary care in terms of where, how, and by whom they are delivered. Implementation is therefore likely to face new commissioning, incentive and delivery challenges. We report on the implementation of a national DPP in NHS England, and identify lessons learned in addressing the implementation challenges.MethodsIn 2017/18, we conducted 20 semi-structured telephone interviews covering 16 sampled case sites with the designated lead(s) responsible for local implementation of the programme. Interviews explored the process of implementation, including organisation of the programme, expectations and attitudes to the programme, funding, target populations and referral and clinical pathways. We drew on constant comparative methods to analyse the data and generate over-arching themes. We complemented our qualitative data with a survey focused on variation in the financial incentives used across sites to ensure usual primary care services recruited patients to new providers.ResultsWe identified five over-arching areas of learning for implementing this large-scale programme: 1) managing new providers; 2) promoting awareness of services; 3) recruiting patients; 4) incentive payments; and 5) mechanisms for sharing learning. In general, tensions appeared to be caused by a lack of clear roles/responsibilities between hierarchical actors, and lack of communication. Both local sites and the national NHS coordination team gained experience through learning by doing. Initial tensions with roles and expectations have been worked out during implementation.ConclusionsImplementing a national disease prevention programme is a major task, and one that will be increasingly faced by health systems globally as they aim to adjust to demand pressures. We provide practical learning opportunities for the wider uptake and sustainability of prevention programmes. Future implementers might wish to define clear responsibilities for each actor prior to implementation, ensure early engagement with new providers, offer mechanisms/forums for sharing learning, generate evidence and provide advice on incentive payments, and prioritise public and professional awareness of the programme.