Pruthvi Raj Guduri1, Shamee Shastry2, Manish Raturi3, Anitha Shenoy4. 1. Head (Transfusion Medicine), The Mission Hospital, Durgapur, West Bengal, India. 2. Professor & Head (Immunohematology & Blood Transfusion), Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India. 3. Assistant Professor (Immunohematology & Blood Transfusion), Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, India. 4. Professor (Anesthesia), Kasturba Medical College, Manipal, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal, Karnataka, India.
Abstract
Background: Overordering of blood has been a challenge faced by the blood bank staff. The present study addresses the role of maximum surgical blood ordering schedule (MSBOS) in optimizing the blood inventory management. Methods: The blood requests for elective surgical procedures from various surgical departments were reviewed to constitute MSBOS. Transfusion profile was assessed using crossmatch to transfused units (C/T) ratio, transfusion probability (TP), and transfusion index (TI). A cutoff of 0.3 and 5% value of TI and TP, respectively, was considered to decide on the type of crossmatch. The efficacy of MSBOS implementation has been determined prospectively by unpaired t test using SPSS software, version 20 (IBM, USA). Results: A total of 2674 patients were studied. Overall red cell usage rate was 15%. The comprehensive C/T ratio was 4.57. The C/T ratios for the various departments ranged from 1 to 8.5 (adjusted C/T ratio). Highest C/T ratio was observed for surgical procedures performed in the specialties of otorhinolaryngology and urology. A C/T ratio greater than 5 was noted in 30.4% of different types of surgical procedures. Of the 176 different types of elective surgical procedures studied, type and screen protocol was applicable for 75.5% (133) of the procedures. After implementation of MSBOS, the number of crossmatches reduced by 2152 and total working time saved in our laboratory is close to 75,320 man hours. Conclusion: MSBOS helps in identifying the common surgical procedures with low TP and is one of the efficient tools in preventing the overordering of the blood.
Background: Overordering of blood has been a challenge faced by the blood bank staff. The present study addresses the role of maximum surgical blood ordering schedule (MSBOS) in optimizing the blood inventory management. Methods: The blood requests for elective surgical procedures from various surgical departments were reviewed to constitute MSBOS. Transfusion profile was assessed using crossmatch to transfused units (C/T) ratio, transfusion probability (TP), and transfusion index (TI). A cutoff of 0.3 and 5% value of TI and TP, respectively, was considered to decide on the type of crossmatch. The efficacy of MSBOS implementation has been determined prospectively by unpaired t test using SPSS software, version 20 (IBM, USA). Results: A total of 2674 patients were studied. Overall red cell usage rate was 15%. The comprehensive C/T ratio was 4.57. The C/T ratios for the various departments ranged from 1 to 8.5 (adjusted C/T ratio). Highest C/T ratio was observed for surgical procedures performed in the specialties of otorhinolaryngology and urology. A C/T ratio greater than 5 was noted in 30.4% of different types of surgical procedures. Of the 176 different types of elective surgical procedures studied, type and screen protocol was applicable for 75.5% (133) of the procedures. After implementation of MSBOS, the number of crossmatches reduced by 2152 and total working time saved in our laboratory is close to 75,320 man hours. Conclusion: MSBOS helps in identifying the common surgical procedures with low TP and is one of the efficient tools in preventing the overordering of the blood.
Authors: G A Nuttall; P J Santrach; W C Oliver; M H Ereth; T T Horlocker; M E Cabanela; R T Trousdale; S Bryant; T W Currie Journal: Transfusion Date: 1998-09 Impact factor: 3.157
Authors: Steven M Frank; James A Rothschild; Courtney G Masear; Richard J Rivers; William T Merritt; Will J Savage; Paul M Ness Journal: Anesthesiology Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 7.892