Do expert assessments converge? An exploratory case study of evaluating and managing a blood supply risk

Abstract Background Examining professional assessments of a blood product recall/withdrawal and its implications for risk and public health, the paper introduces ideas about perceptions of minimal risk and its management. It also describes the context of publicly funded blood transfusion in Canada and the withdrawal event that is the basis of this study. Methods Interviews with 45 experts from administration, medicine, blood supply, laboratory services and risk assessment took place using a multi-level sampling framework in the aftermath of the recall. These experts either directly dealt with the withdrawal or were involved in the management of the blood supply at the national level. Data from these interviews were coded in NVivo for analysis and interpretation. Analytically, data were interpreted to derive typifications to relate interview responses to risk management heuristics. Results While all those interviewed agreed on the importance of patient safety, differences in the ways in which the risk was contextualized and explicated were discerned. Risk was seen in terms of patient safety, liability or precaution. These different risk logics are illustrated by selected quotations. Conclusions Expert assessments did not fully converge and it is possible that these different risk logics and discourses may affect the risk management process more generally, although not necessarily in a negative way. Patient safety is not to be compromised but management of blood risk in publicly funded systems may vary. We suggest ways of managing blood risk using formal and safety case approaches.</p

Bleeding during critical illness: A prospective cohort study using a new measurement tool

Purpose: To estimate the incidence, severity, duration and consequences of bleeding during critical illness, and to test the performance characteristics of a new bleeding assessment tool. Methods: Clinical bleeding assessments were performed prospectively on 100 consecutive patients admitted to a medical-surgical intensive care unit (ICU) using a novel bleeding measurement tool called HEmorrhage MEasurement (HEME). Bleeding assessments were done daily in duplicate and independently by blinded, trained assessors. Inter-rater agreement and construct validity of the HEME tool were calculated using &phi;. Risk factors for major bleeding were identified using a multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Results: Overall, 90% of patients experienced a total of 480 bleeds of which 94.8% were minor and 5.2% were major. Inter-rater reliability of the HEME tool was excellent (&phi; = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96 to 0.99). A decrease in platelet count and a prolongation of partial thromboplastin time were independent risk factors for major bleeding but neither were renal failure nor prophylactic anticoagulation. Patients with major bleeding received more blood transfusions and had longer ICU stays compared to patients with minor or no bleeding. Conclusions: Bleeding, although primarily minor, occurred in the majority of ICU patients. One of five patients experienced a major bleed which was associated with abnormal coagulation tests but not with prophylactic anticoagulants. These baseline bleeding rates can inform the design of future clinical trials in critical care that use bleeding as an outcome and HEME is a useful tool to measure bleeding in critically ill patients

Platelet transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB.

BACKGROUND: The AABB (formerly, the American Association of Blood Banks) developed this guideline on appropriate use of platelet transfusion in adult patients. METHODS: These guidelines are based on a systematic review of randomized, clinical trials and observational studies (1900 to September 2014) that reported clinical outcomes on patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic platelet transfusions. An expert panel reviewed the data and developed recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RECOMMENDATION 1: The AABB recommends that platelets should be transfused prophylactically to reduce the risk for spontaneous bleeding in hospitalized adult patients with therapy-induced hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia. The AABB recommends transfusing hospitalized adult patients with a platelet count of 10 × 109 cells/L or less to reduce the risk for spontaneous bleeding. The AABB recommends transfusing up to a single apheresis unit or equivalent. Greater doses are not more effective, and lower doses equal to one half of a standard apheresis unit are equally effective. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having elective central venous catheter placement with a platelet count less than 20 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having elective diagnostic lumbar puncture with a platelet count less than 50 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having major elective nonneuraxial surgery with a platelet count less than 50 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5: The AABB recommends against routine prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients who are nonthrombocytopenic and have cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The AABB suggests platelet transfusion for patients having bypass who exhibit perioperative bleeding with thrombocytopenia and/or evidence of platelet dysfunction. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: The AABB cannot recommend for or against platelet transfusion for patients receiving antiplatelet therapy who have intracranial hemorrhage (traumatic or spontaneous). (Grade: uncertain recommendation; very-low-quality evidence)