Robert L Kruse 1 , Melissa Neally 1 , Brian C Cho 2 , Evan M Bloch 1 , Parvez M Lokhandwala 1 , Paul M Ness 1 , Steven M Frank 2 , Aaron A R Tobian 1 , Eric A Gehrie 1 . Show Affiliations »
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the impact of electronic medical record (EMR)-guided pooled cryoprecipitate dosing vs our previous practice of requiring transfusion medicine (TM) resident approval for every cryoprecipitate transfusion. METHODS: At our hospital, cryoprecipitate pooled from five donors is dosed for adult patients, while single-donor cryoprecipitate is dosed for pediatric patients (defined as patients <50 kg in weight). EMR-based dosing guidance replaced a previously required TM consultation when cryoprecipitate pools were ordered, but a consultation remained required for single-unit orders. Usage was defined as thawed cryoprecipitate; wastage was defined as cryoprecipitate that expired prior to transfusion. RESULTS: In the 6 months prior to intervention, 178 ± 13 doses of pooled cryoprecipitate were used per month vs 187 ± 15 doses after the intervention (P = .68). Wastage of pooled cryoprecipitate increased from 7.7% ± 1.5% to 12.7% ± 1.4% (P = .038). There was no change in wastage of pediatric cryoprecipitate doses during the study period. These trends remained unchanged for a full year postimplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic dosing guidance resulted in similar cryoprecipitate usage as TM auditing. Increased wastage may result from reduced TM oversight. Product wastage should be balanced against the possibility that real-time audits could delay a lifesaving therapy. © American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the impact of electronic medical record (EMR)-guided pooled cryoprecipitate dosing vs our previous practice of requiring transfusion medicine (TM) resident approval for every cryoprecipitate transfusion. METHODS: At our hospital, cryoprecipitate pooled from five donors is dosed for adult patients , while single-donor cryoprecipitate is dosed for pediatric patients (defined as patients <50 kg in weight). EMR-based dosing guidance replaced a previously required TM consultation when cryoprecipitate pools were ordered, but a consultation remained required for single-unit orders. Usage was defined as thawed cryoprecipitate; wastage was defined as cryoprecipitate that expired prior to transfusion. RESULTS: In the 6 months prior to intervention, 178 ± 13 doses of pooled cryoprecipitate were used per month vs 187 ± 15 doses after the intervention (P = .68). Wastage of pooled cryoprecipitate increased from 7.7% ± 1.5% to 12.7% ± 1.4% (P = .038). There was no change in wastage of pediatric cryoprecipitate doses during the study period. These trends remained unchanged for a full year postimplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic dosing guidance resulted in similar cryoprecipitate usage as TM auditing. Increased wastage may result from reduced TM oversight. Product wastage should be balanced against the possibility that real-time audits could delay a lifesaving therapy. © American Society for Clinical Pathology, 2020. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Entities: Species
Keywords:
Cryoprecipitate; Electronic medical records; Patient blood management
Year: 2020
PMID: 32445461 DOI: 10.1093/ajcp/aqaa042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Clin Pathol ISSN: 0002-9173 Impact factor: 2.493