258 research outputs found

    Patients' and health care professionals' perceptions of blood transfusion: a systematic review

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND Blood transfusions are frequently prescribed for acute and chronic conditions; however, the extent to which patients' and health care professionals' (HCPs') perceptions of transfusion have been investigated is unclear. Patients' treatment perceptions influence how patients cope with illnesses or symptoms. HCPs' perceptions may influence treatment decision making. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS This was a systematic review of studies post‐1984 reporting adult patients' and HCPs' perceptions of blood transfusion. Seven databases were searched using a three‐domain search strategy capturing synonyms relating to: 1) blood transfusion, 2) perceptions, and 3) participant group (patients or HCPs). Study and sample characteristics were extracted and narratively summarized. Reported perceptions were extracted and synthesized using inductive qualitative methods to identify key themes. RESULTS Thirty‐two studies were included: 14 investigated patients' perceptions and 18 HCPs' perceptions. Surgical patients were the highest represented patient group. HCPs were from a wide range of professions. Transfusions were perceived by patients and HCPs as being of low‐to‐moderate risk. Risk and negative emotions were perceived to influence preference for alternatives. Five themes emerged from the synthesis, classified as Safety/risk, Negative emotions, Alternatives (e.g., autologous, monitoring), Health benefits, and Decision making. “Safety/risk” and “Negative emotions” were most frequently investigated over time, yet periods of research inactivity are apparent. CONCLUSIONS The literature has identified themes on how transfusions are perceived by patients and HCPs, which overlap with recognized discussion points for transfusion specialists. These themes may help HCPs when educating patients about transfusion or consenting patients. Theory‐based qualitative methods may add an important dimension to this work

    Definitions of massive transfusion in adults with critical bleeding: a systematic review.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Definitions for massive transfusion (MT) vary widely between studies, contributing to challenges in interpretation of research findings and practice evaluation. In this first systematic review, we aimed to identify all MT definitions used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to date to inform the development of consensus definitions for MT. METHODS: We systematically searched the following databases for RCTs from inception until 11 August 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Transfusion Evidence Library. Ongoing trials were sought from CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and World Health Organisation International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. To be eligible for inclusion, studies had to fulfil all the following three criteria: (1) be an RCT; (2) include an adult patient population with major bleeding who had received, or were anticipated to receive, an MT in any clinical setting; and (3) specify a definition for MT as an inclusion criterion or outcome measure. RESULTS: Of the 8,458 distinct references identified, 30 trials were included for analysis (19 published, 11 ongoing). Trauma was the most common clinical setting in published trials, while for ongoing trials, it was obstetrics. A total of 15 different definitions of MT were identified across published and ongoing trials, varying greatly in cut-offs for volume transfused and time period. Almost all definitions specified the number of red blood cells (RBCs) within a set time period, with none including plasma, platelets or other haemostatic agents that are part of contemporary transfusion resuscitation. For completed trials, the most commonly used definition was transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units in 24 h (9/19, all in trauma), while for ongoing trials it was 3-5 RBC units (n = 7), with the timing for transfusion being poorly defined, or in some trials not provided at all (n = 5). CONCLUSIONS: Transfusion of ≥ 10 RBC units within 24 h was the most commonly used definition in published RCTs, while lower RBC volumes are being used in ongoing RCTs. Any consensus definitions should reflect the need to incorporate different blood components/products for MT and agree on whether a 'one-size-fits-all' approach should be used across different clinical settings

    Supportive care in the management of patients with acute myeloid leukaemia: where are the research needs?

    Get PDF
    Supportive care for patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) is defined as a broad range of interventions that ameliorate the symptoms of a disease, or the side effects caused by treatment, and which address psychological, cultural, social and spiritual factors.1 Transfusion support and infection management are key examples of supportive care that have contributed significantly to the successes of more intensive chemotherapy, delivering improvements in outcomes despite, arguably, only modest improvements in chemotherapy regimens.2 This article will review our current practice of transfusion therapy and infection management and identify research opportunities which the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) AML working party are supporting, alongside forthcoming national AML trials

    Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods

    Get PDF
    Background There is growing interest in the impact of national clinical audit programmes on the quality of healthcare. There is also an evolving evidence-base for enhancing the design and delivery of audit and feedback. We assessed the extent to which a sample of UK national clinical audit feedback reports met a set of good practice criteria over three time points. Methods We undertook three cross-sectional content analyses. We developed good practice criteria for the content and delivery of feedback based upon evidence, behavioural theory and expert opinion. We applied these to a feedback reports from 23 national audits listed on the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) website in November 2015. We repeated our assessments in January 2017 for 20 repeat feedback reports, after HQIP had published reporting guidance for national audits, and in August 2019 for a further 14 repeat feedback reports. We verified our assessments, where possible, with audit leads. Results Feedback reports consistently included strengths at baseline, including past or planned repeated audit cycles (21; 91%), stating the importance of the topic in relation to patient care (22; 93%), using multi-modal data presentation (23; 100%), and summarising key findings (23; 100%). We observed improvements over subsequent assessments, so that by 2019, at least 13 out of 14 (93%) feedback reports presented easily identifiable key findings and recommendations, linked recommendations to audit standards, and proposed easily identifiable action plans. Whilst the use of regional comparators did not improve, audit leads highlighted that programmes now provide local data via additional means. The main shortcoming was the time lag between data collection and feedback; none of the 14 reports assessed in 2019 presented performance data less than 6 months old. Audit leads highlighted that some of these data might be available via programme websites. Conclusion We identified increased adherence to good practice in feedback by national clinical audit programmes that may enhance their impact on service delivery and outcomes. There is scope for improvement, especially in the recency of performance data. With further refinements, a criterion-based assessment offers an efficient means of monitoring the quality of national clinical audit feedback reports

    Transfusion of fresh frozen plasma in non-bleeding ICU patients -TOPIC TRIAL: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    <p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Fresh frozen plasma (FFP) is an effective therapy to correct for a deficiency of multiple coagulation factors during bleeding. In past years, use of FFP has increased, in particular in patients on the Intensive Care Unit (ICU), and has expanded to include prophylactic use in patients with a coagulopathy prior to undergoing an invasive procedure. Retrospective studies suggest that prophylactic use of FFP does not prevent bleeding, but carries the risk of transfusion-related morbidity. However, up to 50% of FFP is administered to non-bleeding ICU patients. With the aim to investigate whether prophylactic FFP transfusions to critically ill patients can be safely omitted, a multi-center randomized clinical trial is conducted in ICU patients with a coagulopathy undergoing an invasive procedure.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A non-inferiority, prospective, multicenter randomized open-label, blinded end point evaluation (PROBE) trial. In the intervention group, a prophylactic transfusion of FFP prior to an invasive procedure is omitted compared to transfusion of a fixed dose of 12 ml/kg in the control group. Primary outcome measure is relevant bleeding. Secondary outcome measures are minor bleeding, correction of International Normalized Ratio, onset of acute lung injury, length of ventilation days and length of Intensive Care Unit stay.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The Transfusion of Fresh Frozen Plasma in non-bleeding ICU patients (TOPIC) trial is the first multi-center randomized controlled trial powered to investigate whether it is safe to withhold FFP transfusion to coagulopathic critically ill patients undergoing an invasive procedure.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>Trial registration: Dutch Trial Register NTR2262 and ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01143909">NCT01143909</a></p

    A total blood volume or more transfused during pregnancy or after childbirth: Individual patient data from six international population-based observational studies.

    Get PDF
    BackgroundThis study aimed to compare incidence, management and outcomes of women transfused their blood volume or more within 24 hours during pregnancy or following childbirth.MethodsCombined analysis of individual patient data, prospectively collected in six international population-based studies (France, United Kingdom, Italy, Australia, the Netherlands and Denmark). Massive transfusion in major obstetric haemorrhage was defined as transfusion of eight or more units of red blood cells within 24 hours in a pregnant or postpartum woman. Causes, management and outcomes of women with massive transfusion were compared across countries using descriptive statistics.FindingsThe incidence of massive transfusion was approximately 21 women per 100,000 maternities for the United Kingdom, Australia and Italy; by contrast Denmark, the Netherlands and France had incidences of 82, 66 and 69 per 100,000 maternities, respectively. There was large variation in obstetric and haematological management across countries. Fibrinogen products were used in 86% of women in Australia, while the Netherlands and Italy reported lower use at 35-37% of women. Tranexamic acid was used in 75% of women in the Netherlands, but in less than half of women in the UK, Australia and Italy. In all countries, women received large quantities of colloid/crystalloid fluids during resuscitation (>3·5 litres). There was large variation in the use of compression sutures, embolisation and hysterectomy across countries. There was no difference in maternal mortality; however, variable proportions of women had cardiac arrests, renal failure and thrombotic events from 0-16%.InterpretationThere was considerable variation in the incidence of massive transfusion associated with major obstetric haemorrhage across six high-income countries. There were also large disparities in both transfusion and obstetric management between these countries. There is a requirement for detailed evaluation of evidence underlying current guidance. Furthermore, cross-country comparison may empower countries to reference their clinical care against that of other countries

    How do hospitals respond to feedback about blood transfusion practice? A multiple case study investigation

    Get PDF
    National clinical audits play key roles in improving care and driving system-wide change. However, effects of audit and feedback depend upon both reach (e.g. relevant staff receiving the feedback) and response (e.g. staff regulating their behaviour accordingly). This study aimed to investigate which hospital staff initially receive feedback and formulate a response, how feedback is disseminated within hospitals, and how responses are enacted (including barriers and enablers to enactment). Using a multiple case study approach, we purposively sampled four UK hospitals for variation in infrastructure and resources. We conducted semi-structured interviews with staff from transfusion-related roles and observed Hospital Transfusion Committee meetings. Interviews and analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. We coded interview transcripts into theoretical domains, then inductively identified themes within each domain to identify barriers and enablers. We also analysed data to identify which staff currently receive feedback and how dissemination is managed within the hospital. Members of the hospital's transfusion team initially received feedback in all cases, and were primarily responsible for disseminating and responding, facilitated through the Hospital Transfusion Committee. At each hospital, key individuals involved in prescribing transfusions reported never having received feedback from a national audit. Whether audits were discussed and actions explicitly agreed in Committee meetings varied between hospitals. Key enablers of action across all cases included clear lines of responsibility and strategies to remind staff about recommendations. Barriers included difficulties disseminating to relevant staff and needing to amend feedback to make it appropriate for local use. Appropriate responses by hospital staff to feedback about blood transfusion practice depend upon supportive infrastructures and role clarity. Hospitals could benefit from support to disseminate feedback systematically, particularly to frontline staff involved in the behaviours being audited, and practical tools to support strategic decision-making (e.g. action-planning around local response to feedback)
    corecore