Why the study?
Excessive blood ordering for elective surgery wastes resources, time, and workforce, whereas auditing preoperative orders can reduce costs without compromising safety.
Cross-matching is overused for elective surgical procedures, suggesting that a group and screen policy could safely reduce unnecessary resource utilization.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May reduce unnecessary cross-matching and costs in elective surgery; leaves open broader applicability beyond single-center audits.
Background Blood ordering is commonly done for patients undergoing major elective surgery. Excessive order of the blood for elective surgery leads to wastage of resources, time and workforce. Auditing preoperative blood ordering decreases the cost of medical care by avoiding unnecessary cross-match without compromising patient safety. Methods For this hospital-based audit, we collected data prospectively from July 2017 to June 2018 regarding the transfusion and transfusion indices, namely cross-match-totransfusion ratio (C/T ratio), transfusion probability (T%), transfusion index (TI) and maximum surgical blood ordering schedule (MSBOS) for elective surgeries done in the Department of Surgery. Results A total of 1151 patients were included in the study. A total of 160 units of blood were issued of which only 138 were transfused to 116 patients. Seventy-one procedures were included in the study. The C/T ratio was less than 2.5 for 16 procedures, T% was >50% for 9 procedures and MSBOS was more than 0.5 for 16 procedures. Conclusion Cross-matching is overused for elective surgical procedures. Only 16 of the 71 procedures had an ideal C/T ratio. Group and screen policy can be adopted for most of the commonly performed procedures, and cross-matching of blood may not be needed.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Shaikh et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: