BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds and the associated clinical practice guidelines, clinical practice has been slow to change in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our aim was to identify barriers to conservative transfusion practice adherence. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A mixed-methods study involving observation of prescriber (i.e., physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) and bedside nurse daily bedside rounds, provider survey, and medical record abstraction was conducted in one cardiac surgical ICU (CSICU) and one surgical ICU (SICU) in an academic hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. RESULTS: Of 52 patient encounters observed during bedside rounds, 38 (73%) involved patients without evidence of active bleeding or cardiac ischemia. Surveys were completed by 52 (93%) of the 56 providers participating in rounds. Prescribers in the CSICU and SICU (87 and 90%, respectively) indicated the ideal pretransfusion hemoglobin (Hb) to be not more than 7 g/dL in nonbleeding and/or nonischemic patients compared to a minority of nurses (8% [p = 0.002] and 42% [p = 0.015], respectively). Prescribers and nurses in both ICUs overestimated the typical pretransfusion Hb in their units (CSICU, p < 0.001; SICU, p = 0.019). During rounds, providers infrequently explicitly discussed Hb monitoring or transfusion thresholds (33%) despite most (60%) reporting significant variation in transfusion thresholds between individual prescribers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several provider and system barriers to evidence-based transfusion practices including knowledge differences, overly optimistic estimates of current practice, and heterogeneous transfusion practice in each ICU. Further work is necessary to develop targeted interventions to improve evidence-based RBC transfusion practices.
BACKGROUND: Despite evidence supporting restrictive red blood cell (RBC) transfusion thresholds and the associated clinical practice guidelines, clinical practice has been slow to change in the intensive care unit (ICU). Our aim was to identify barriers to conservative transfusion practice adherence. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A mixed-methods study involving observation of prescriber (i.e., physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners) and bedside nurse daily bedside rounds, provider survey, and medical record abstraction was conducted in one cardiac surgical ICU (CSICU) and one surgical ICU (SICU) in an academic hospital in Baltimore, Maryland. RESULTS: Of 52 patient encounters observed during bedside rounds, 38 (73%) involved patients without evidence of active bleeding or cardiac ischemia. Surveys were completed by 52 (93%) of the 56 providers participating in rounds. Prescribers in the CSICU and SICU (87 and 90%, respectively) indicated the ideal pretransfusion hemoglobin (Hb) to be not more than 7 g/dL in nonbleeding and/or nonischemic patients compared to a minority of nurses (8% [p = 0.002] and 42% [p = 0.015], respectively). Prescribers and nurses in both ICUs overestimated the typical pretransfusion Hb in their units (CSICU, p < 0.001; SICU, p = 0.019). During rounds, providers infrequently explicitly discussed Hb monitoring or transfusion thresholds (33%) despite most (60%) reporting significant variation in transfusion thresholds between individual prescribers. CONCLUSIONS: Our study identified several provider and system barriers to evidence-based transfusion practices including knowledge differences, overly optimistic estimates of current practice, and heterogeneous transfusion practice in each ICU. Further work is necessary to develop targeted interventions to improve evidence-based RBC transfusion practices.
Authors: Craig J French; Rinaldo Bellomo; Simon R Finfer; Jeffery Lipman; Marianne Chapman; Neil W Boyce Journal: Med J Aust Date: 2002-11-18 Impact factor: 7.738
Authors: Jean Louis Vincent; Jean-François Baron; Konrad Reinhart; Luciano Gattinoni; Lambert Thijs; Andrew Webb; Andreas Meier-Hellmann; Guy Nollet; Daliana Peres-Bota Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-09-25 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R Phillip Dellinger; Mitchell M Levy; Andrew Rhodes; Djillali Annane; Herwig Gerlach; Steven M Opal; Jonathan E Sevransky; Charles L Sprung; Ivor S Douglas; Roman Jaeschke; Tiffany M Osborn; Mark E Nunnally; Sean R Townsend; Konrad Reinhart; Ruth M Kleinpell; Derek C Angus; Clifford S Deutschman; Flavia R Machado; Gordon D Rubenfeld; Steven A Webb; Richard J Beale; Jean-Louis Vincent; Rui Moreno Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Didier Pittet; Anne Simon; Stéphane Hugonnet; Carmen Lúcia Pessoa-Silva; Valérie Sauvan; Thomas V Perneger Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2004-07-06 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Howard L Corwin; Andrew Gettinger; Ronald G Pearl; Mitchell P Fink; Mitchell M Levy; Edward Abraham; Neil R MacIntyre; M Michael Shabot; Mei-Sheng Duh; Marc J Shapiro Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Peter Pronovost; Sean Berenholtz; Todd Dorman; Pam A Lipsett; Terri Simmonds; Carol Haraden Journal: J Crit Care Date: 2003-06 Impact factor: 3.425
Authors: Thomas Frietsch; Daffyd Thomas; Michael Schöler; Birgit Fleiter; Martin Schipplick; Michael Spannagl; Ralf Knels; Xuan Nguyen Journal: Transfus Med Hemother Date: 2017-03-16 Impact factor: 3.747
Authors: Allan Doctor; Jill M Cholette; Kenneth E Remy; Andrew Argent; Jeffrey L Carson; Stacey L Valentine; Scot T Bateman; Jacques Lacroix Journal: Pediatr Crit Care Med Date: 2018-09 Impact factor: 3.624
Authors: Wouter T Gude; Marie-José Roos-Blom; Sabine N van der Veer; Evert de Jonge; Niels Peek; Dave A Dongelmans; Nicolette F de Keizer Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2017-05-25 Impact factor: 7.327