Perrin Jhaveri1,2, Selen Bozkurt3, Axel Moyal3, Artur Belov4, Steven Anderson4, Hua Shan1,2, Barbee Whitaker4, Tina Hernandez-Boussard1,3. 1. School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA. 2. Stanford Blood Center, Stanford, California, USA. 3. Department of Medicine (Biomedical Informatics), Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA. 4. Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Office of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, US FDA, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions are a vital component of modern healthcare, yet adverse reactions to blood product transfusions can cause morbidity, and rarely result in mortality. Therefore, accurate reporting of transfusion related adverse events (TRAEs) is paramount to improved transfusion practice. This study aims to investigate real-world data (RWD) on TRAEs by evaluating differences between ICD 9/10-based electronic health records (EHR) and blood bank-specific reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TRAE data were retrospectively collected from a blood bank-specific database between Jan 2015 and June 2019 as the reference data source and compared it to ICD 9/10 diagnostic codes corresponding to various TRAEs. Seven reactions that have corresponding ICD 9/10 diagnostic codes were evaluated: Transfusion related circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion related acute lung injury (TRALI), febrile non-hemolytic reaction (FNHTR), transfusion-related anaphylactic reaction (TRA), acute hemolytic transfusion reaction (AHTR), delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction (DHTR), and delayed serologic reaction (DSTR). These accounted for 33% of the TRAEs at an academic institution during the study period. RESULTS: Among 18637 adult blood transfusion recipients, there were 229 unique patients with 263 TRAE related ICD codes in the EHR, while there were 191 unique patients with 287 TRAEs identified in the blood bank database. None of the categories of reaction we investigated had perfect alignment between ICD 9/10 codes and blood bank specific diagnoses. DISCUSSION: Multiple systemic challenges were identified that hinder effective reporting of TRAEs. Identifying factors causing inconsistent reporting between blood banks and EHRs is paramount to developing effective workability between these electronic systems, as well as across clinical and laboratory teams.
BACKGROUND: Blood transfusions are a vital component of modern healthcare, yet adverse reactions to blood product transfusions can cause morbidity, and rarely result in mortality. Therefore, accurate reporting of transfusion related adverse events (TRAEs) is paramount to improved transfusion practice. This study aims to investigate real-world data (RWD) on TRAEs by evaluating differences between ICD 9/10-based electronic health records (EHR) and blood bank-specific reporting. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: TRAE data were retrospectively collected from a blood bank-specific database between Jan 2015 and June 2019 as the reference data source and compared it to ICD 9/10 diagnostic codes corresponding to various TRAEs. Seven reactions that have corresponding ICD 9/10 diagnostic codes were evaluated: Transfusion related circulatory overload (TACO), transfusion related acute lung injury (TRALI), febrile non-hemolytic reaction (FNHTR), transfusion-related anaphylactic reaction (TRA), acute hemolytic transfusion reaction (AHTR), delayed hemolytic transfusion reaction (DHTR), and delayed serologic reaction (DSTR). These accounted for 33% of the TRAEs at an academic institution during the study period. RESULTS: Among 18637 adult blood transfusion recipients, there were 229 unique patients with 263 TRAE related ICD codes in the EHR, while there were 191 unique patients with 287 TRAEs identified in the blood bank database. None of the categories of reaction we investigated had perfect alignment between ICD 9/10 codes and blood bank specific diagnoses. DISCUSSION: Multiple systemic challenges were identified that hinder effective reporting of TRAEs. Identifying factors causing inconsistent reporting between blood banks and EHRs is paramount to developing effective workability between these electronic systems, as well as across clinical and laboratory teams.
Authors: Kimberly J O'Malley; Karon F Cook; Matt D Price; Kimberly Raiford Wildes; John F Hurdle; Carol M Ashton Journal: Health Serv Res Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 3.402
Authors: Derek J Williams; Samir S Shah; Angela Myers; Matthew Hall; Katherine Auger; Mary Ann Queen; Karen E Jerardi; Lauren McClain; Catherine Wiggleton; Joel S Tieder Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2013-09 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Loan R van Hoeven; Martine C de Bruijne; Peter F Kemper; Maria M W Koopman; Jan M M Rondeel; Anja Leyte; Hendrik Koffijberg; Mart P Janssen; Kit C B Roes Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-07-14 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Christian R Bauer; Carolin Knecht; Christoph Fretter; Benjamin Baum; Sandra Jendrossek; Malte Rühlemann; Femke-Anouska Heinsen; Nadine Umbach; Bodo Grimbacher; Andre Franke; Wolfgang Lieb; Michael Krawczak; Marc-Thorsten Hütt; Ulrich Sax Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2017-05-01 Impact factor: 11.622