Alexandra Savinkina1,2, Mathew R P Sapiano3, James Berger4, Sridhar V Basavaraju1. 1. Office of Blood, Organ, and Other Tissue Safety, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 2. Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education, Oak Ridge, Tennessee. 3. Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia. 4. US Department of Health & Human Services, Office of HIV/AIDS & Infectious Disease Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Washington, DC.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Estimates of blood collection and use in the United States derived from the National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey (NBCUS) call for application of robust statistical methods in the analysis of survey data. Since 1993, annual inpatient surgical volume has been used as the main stratification variable for sampling and estimation. However, recent NBCUS results have shown a decrease in blood use in surgical settings, raising the possibility that inpatient surgical volume may no longer be the optimal stratification variable. The objective of this study is to explore factors affecting hospital blood utilization. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A multivariate generalized linear regression with a negative binomial distribution was used to determine which hospital characteristics best explained allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) use, using data from the 2015 NBCUS to determine hospital blood use and the 2013 annual American Hospital Association database to identify hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Annual inpatient surgical volume explained the most variation in allogeneic RBC use among hospitals (pseudo-R2 of 70.8%). Additional variables, such as presence of an oncology service, were also statistically significant in the models but explained little additional variability in blood use. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that annual inpatient surgical volume is an appropriate indicator for estimating blood utilization in the United States. As trends in blood utilization continue to evolve, ongoing analytic efforts to understand indicators of blood use are necessary.
BACKGROUND: Estimates of blood collection and use in the United States derived from the National Blood Collection and Utilization Survey (NBCUS) call for application of robust statistical methods in the analysis of survey data. Since 1993, annual inpatient surgical volume has been used as the main stratification variable for sampling and estimation. However, recent NBCUS results have shown a decrease in blood use in surgical settings, raising the possibility that inpatient surgical volume may no longer be the optimal stratification variable. The objective of this study is to explore factors affecting hospital blood utilization. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A multivariate generalized linear regression with a negative binomial distribution was used to determine which hospital characteristics best explained allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) use, using data from the 2015 NBCUS to determine hospital blood use and the 2013 annual American Hospital Association database to identify hospital characteristics. RESULTS: Annual inpatient surgical volume explained the most variation in allogeneic RBC use among hospitals (pseudo-R2 of 70.8%). Additional variables, such as presence of an oncology service, were also statistically significant in the models but explained little additional variability in blood use. CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that annual inpatient surgical volume is an appropriate indicator for estimating blood utilization in the United States. As trends in blood utilization continue to evolve, ongoing analytic efforts to understand indicators of blood use are necessary.
Authors: Mathew R P Sapiano; Alexandra A Savinkina; Katherine D Ellingson; Kathryn A Haass; Misha L Baker; Richard A Henry; James J Berger; Matthew J Kuehnert; Sridhar V Basavaraju Journal: Transfusion Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Koo-Whang Chung; Sridhar V Basavaraju; Yi Mu; Katharina L van Santen; Kathryn A Haass; Richard Henry; James Berger; Matthew J Kuehnert Journal: Transfusion Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Ana F Best; Emily A Haozous; Amy Berrington de Gonzalez; Pavel Chernyavskiy; Neal D Freedman; Patricia Hartge; David Thomas; Philip S Rosenberg; Meredith S Shiels Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2018-07-21
Authors: Simon J Stanworth; Timothy S Walsh; Robin J Prescott; Robert J Lee; Douglas M Watson; Duncan Wyncoll Journal: Crit Care Date: 2011-04-05 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Hadi Kharrazi; Claudia P Gonzalez; Kevin B Lowe; Timothy R Huerta; Eric W Ford Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2018-08-07 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Jefferson M Jones; Mathew R P Sapiano; Sanjida Mowla; Dorothy Bota; James J Berger; Sridhar V Basavaraju Journal: Transfusion Date: 2021-06-24 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Mathew R P Sapiano; Jefferson M Jones; Alexandra A Savinkina; Kathryn A Haass; James J Berger; Sridhar V Basavaraju Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-03 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Ian Kracalik; Sanjida Mowla; Louis Katz; Melissa Cumming; Matthew R P Sapiano; Sridhar V Basavaraju Journal: Transfusion Date: 2021-07-08 Impact factor: 3.337
Authors: Jefferson M Jones; Mathew R P Sapiano; Alexandra A Savinkina; Kathryn A Haass; Misha L Baker; Richard A Henry; James J Berger; Sridhar V Basavaraju Journal: Transfusion Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 3.337