Implementation and evaluation of a blood products traceability procedure in a District General Hospital

Le résumé fourni par la source

Aim: The study evaluated poor traceability compliance of blood products within a District General Hospital (DGH) and explored why the wards traceability compliance varied across the DGH. The study also explored risk factors that lead to poor traceability of blood products within the DGH and implemented a suitable model to improve traceability compliance. Method: A quantitative approach was adopted. Data were collected using questionnaires, observations, and audit where data were extracted from the laboratory information management systems. A questionnaire was designed, piloted, and sent to all ward managers within the DGH, a descriptive statistic of the survey data was analyzed using statistical package SPSS (version 19, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Results: The wards with high transfusion episodes were more compliant than wards with fewer transfusion episodes in this study. Moreover, the low usage group had a significant lower compliance rate than the medium and high usage groups (p and #60; 0.001), also the study provided an insight into the variety of services delivered to the end-users of transfusion services. It highlighted a lack of training tools; poor procedures for the return of labels and the challenges faced with the portering service. Poor communication between the laboratory and end-users was identified as another issue. It was evident that although electronic tracking and paper-based methods improved traceability compliance, the cost of the two systems required further exploration. Conclusion: The finding from this study reiterated the importance of a trained transfusion practitioner, to provide support and training to the frontline personnel involved in the collection and transfusion of blood products within the DGH. The response to these problems led to the innovative use of the air tube system to send completed transfusion tags to the blood transfusion laboratory.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.