| Literature DB >> 35473708 |
Luxi Jiang1, Guobing Zhang2,3, Ke Hao1, Weiling Xiang1, Qin Zhang3, Yiwei Xie1, Zhen Wang4, Bingyu Chen5, Yaoqiang Du6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to improve the blood transfusion treatment consent accuracy, simplify the verification process, prolong the temperature control time before the blood transfusion, and save the blood transportation labor cost.Entities:
Keywords: Blood delivering; Electronic transfusion consent; Labor cost; Transfusion management system
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35473708 PMCID: PMC9044836 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-07825-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Health Serv Res ISSN: 1472-6963 Impact factor: 2.908
Fig. 1The TMS main frame in the hospital. The italic part was the quality project to be added. The underlined part was the quality project to be optimized
Fig. 2The comparison between the flow of electronic blood transfusion consent and paper blood transfusion consent process. The thickness of lines and arrows was representing an improved electronic blood transfusion consent process. The double arrow dotted line path represents the two ways of calculating the time spent for blood transfusion consent confirmation
Fig. 3Flowcharts of the two ways of blood transport process. The thickness of lines and borders was representing the blood delivering pattern
Fig. 4The changes in blood transfusion informed consent form and blood transfusion consent confirmation time. A Proportion of electronic and paper blood transfusion consent forms from June 2019 to December 2019. Ele: electronic, Pap: paper. B The time difference between blood transfusion consent confirmation and blood transfusion application in the emergency department from June 2019 to December 2019. Compared with June 2019, July 2019 and August 2019, the difference was significant (**: p < 0.001). C The time difference of electronic blood transfusion and paper blood transfusion consents. The difference was significant (**: p < 0.001)
The time difference of paper blood transfusion and electronic blood transfusion consent process
| Item | M (P25, P75) | Estimated Difference 95% (CI) | Mann–Whitney U test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z value | ||||
| Paper | 21 (12, 53) | 26 (20 to 36) | -11.398 | < 0.001 |
| Electronic | 2 (-4.75, 8.80) | |||
Fig. 5The changes of blood transport pattern and temperature control time. A Proportion of different blood transport modes from June 2019 to December 2019. B The time for blood unit leaving temperature control from June 2019 to December 2019. Compared with June 2019, July 2019, August 2019 and September 2019, the difference was significant (**: p < 0.001). C The leaving temperature control time between issuing and delivering blood. The difference was significant (**: p < 0.001)
Leaving temperature control time of issuing and delivering the blood units
| Item | M (P25, P75) | Estimated Difference 95% (CI) | Mann–Whitney U test | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Z value | ||||
| Issuing | 18.48 (12.12, 27.43) | 7.24 (6.92 to 7.56) | -41.98 | < 0.001 |
| Delivering | 10.53 (5.68, 18.91) | |||
Cost comparison of the different modes of transporting blood units
| Items | Issuing | Delivering |
|---|---|---|
| Average time for each unit (h) | 0.62 | 0.26 |
| Ward nurses time cost ($/h) | 7.48 | - |
| Transport center nurses time cost ($/h) | - | 3.74 |
| Total cost of staff time for each unit ($) | 4.64 | 0.97 |
| Annual saving in staff time costs that delivering blood contributed ($) | - | 99,000a |
Note: The exchange rate of $ (USD) to ¥ (CNY) here was 6.366 in December 2021; a Estimated Value