BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that a transfusion (Tx) trigger hemoglobin (Hgb) value of 8 gm/dL may be safer than a more liberal Tx trigger in cardiac surgery (CS) patients. We hypothesized that weekly physician feedback would improve adherence to such a protocol, but that the public identification of individual physician behavior would have an additive effect. METHODS: We concurrently reviewed all adult CS patients at our institution from December 1, 2010 to May 27, 2011. We matched any cardiac surgery intensive care unit Tx event (red blood cells) with the Hgb value immediately before Tx. Patients requiring massive transfusions (>10 units/24 hours) were excluded. After all providers agreed upon a Hgb of 8 as the Tx trigger, we studied 3 consecutive time periods: no feedback, weekly feedback of group Tx behavior, and weekly feedback with identification of individual surgeon Tx behavior. RESULTS: Of the 512 patients who underwent cardiac operations, 144 patients underwent 510 Tx events. Compared with period 1, the unadjusted odds of receiving a Tx above 8 gm/dL decreased by 48% in study period 2(odds ratio: 0.52, p < 0.01), and 63% in study period 3(odds ratio: 0.37, p <0.001). Single unit transfusion rates increased from 77% to greater than 90% (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality also fell from period 1 to period 3 (7.0% to 1.5%, p = 0.02) with the observed to expected mortality ratio decreasing from 2.19 to 0.51. CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion protocol adherence improves when weekly feedback is provided. Identifying individual surgeon behavior improves adherence to a greater degree. Routine presentation of quality metrics with identification of individual physician-specific behavior may be the most effective way to accomplish performance improvement.
BACKGROUND: Evidence indicates that a transfusion (Tx) trigger hemoglobin (Hgb) value of 8 gm/dL may be safer than a more liberal Tx trigger in cardiac surgery (CS) patients. We hypothesized that weekly physician feedback would improve adherence to such a protocol, but that the public identification of individual physician behavior would have an additive effect. METHODS: We concurrently reviewed all adult CS patients at our institution from December 1, 2010 to May 27, 2011. We matched any cardiac surgery intensive care unit Tx event (red blood cells) with the Hgb value immediately before Tx. Patients requiring massive transfusions (>10 units/24 hours) were excluded. After all providers agreed upon a Hgb of 8 as the Tx trigger, we studied 3 consecutive time periods: no feedback, weekly feedback of group Tx behavior, and weekly feedback with identification of individual surgeon Tx behavior. RESULTS: Of the 512 patients who underwent cardiac operations, 144 patients underwent 510 Tx events. Compared with period 1, the unadjusted odds of receiving a Tx above 8 gm/dL decreased by 48% in study period 2(odds ratio: 0.52, p < 0.01), and 63% in study period 3(odds ratio: 0.37, p <0.001). Single unit transfusion rates increased from 77% to greater than 90% (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality also fell from period 1 to period 3 (7.0% to 1.5%, p = 0.02) with the observed to expected mortality ratio decreasing from 2.19 to 0.51. CONCLUSIONS: Blood transfusion protocol adherence improves when weekly feedback is provided. Identifying individual surgeon behavior improves adherence to a greater degree. Routine presentation of quality metrics with identification of individual physician-specific behavior may be the most effective way to accomplish performance improvement.
Authors: Thomas J Wang; Elizabeth A Mort; Paul Nordberg; Yuchiao Chang; Mary E Cadigan; Laura Mylott; Lillian V Ananian; B Taylor Thompson; Michael Fessler; William Warren; Amy Wheeler; Mark Jordan; Michael A Fifer Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 2002-09-09
Authors: Ronit Calderon-Margalit; Shlomo Mor-Yosef; Michael Mayer; Bella Adler; Shmuel C Shapira Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2005-04-18 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Peter K Lindenauer; Denise Remus; Sheila Roman; Michael B Rothberg; Evan M Benjamin; Allen Ma; Dale W Bratzler Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-26 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P C Hébert; G Wells; M A Blajchman; J Marshall; C Martin; G Pagliarello; M Tweeddale; I Schweitzer; E Yetisir Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 1999-02-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Gavin J Murphy; Barnaby C Reeves; Chris A Rogers; Syed I A Rizvi; Lucy Culliford; Gianni D Angelini Journal: Circulation Date: 2007-11-12 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Nils Kucher; Sophia Koo; Rene Quiroz; Joshua M Cooper; Marilyn D Paterno; Boris Soukonnikov; Samuel Z Goldhaber Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2005-03-10 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Càndid Villanueva; Alan Colomo; Alba Bosch; Mar Concepción; Virginia Hernandez-Gea; Carles Aracil; Isabel Graupera; María Poca; Cristina Alvarez-Urturi; Jordi Gordillo; Carlos Guarner-Argente; Miquel Santaló; Eduardo Muñiz; Carlos Guarner Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Eric G Neilson; Kevin B Johnson; S Trent Rosenbloom; William D Dupont; Doug Talbert; Dario A Giuse; Allen Kaiser; Randolph A Miller Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-08-03 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Juan B Grau; Jacqueline H Fortier; Cyrus Kuschner; Giovanni Ferrari; Mariano E Brizzio; Alex Zapolanski; Richard E Shaw Journal: Transfusion Date: 2017-07-16 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Lesley J J Soril; Thomas W Noseworthy; Laura E Dowsett; Katherine Memedovich; Hannah M Holitzki; Diane L Lorenzetti; Henry Thomas Stelfox; David A Zygun; Fiona M Clement Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 2.692