{"title":"Bridging the gaps: A prospective analysis of root causes for rejection and incompleteness in blood requisition forms","authors":"Shweta Ranjan, Nishith Nayan, Bankim Das, Rakesh Kumar, Saurabh Lahare, Neha Singh, Ruchi Sinha","doi":"10.1016/j.tracli.2024.08.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>Blood request form (BRF) stands as a pivotal document in ensuring safe and effective blood transfusions within healthcare settings. Incomplete or erroneous data on BRF can heighten risk of adverse reactions and compromise patient safety. Aim of study was to assess level of completion of BRFs by clinicians and to evaluate root cause analysis (RCA) of incompleteness of BRFs and factors leading to their rejection.</div></div><div><h3>Materials and Methods</h3><div>This prospective study was carried out from February 2024 to April 2024 on BRFs received in the blood centre. They were audited and RCA for factors leading to their incompleteness and rejection were analysed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Total number of BRFs received in blood centre was 14,468. 13,358 (92.3%) BRFs were accepted and 1,110 (7.7%) BRFs were rejected. 12,804 (95.85%) of accepted BRFs were incomplete. Weight was the most common missing parameter (89% {<em>n</em> = 11403}) while name of the requesting clinician was least common (2.5% {<em>n</em>-318}). 3.52% <em>n</em> = 510) BRFs were rejected due to mismatch in name and patient registration number on BRF and samples. 0.14% <em>n</em> = 21) BRFs were rejected due to hemolysed samples. RCA for incompleteness of BRFs showed that main reason was manpower (61–83%) while environment was least common (17–67%). RCA for rejection of BRFs showed that environment was most common cause (13.3–80.15%) while manpower was least common (9–19.85%).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Regular audits and personnel training, and quality assurance measures can help identify and address deficiencies in BRF completion to enhance patient safety and reduce incidence of transfusion-related errors and complications.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":23262,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Clinique et Biologique","volume":"31 4","pages":"Pages 217-222"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Clinique et Biologique","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1246782024000971","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction
Blood request form (BRF) stands as a pivotal document in ensuring safe and effective blood transfusions within healthcare settings. Incomplete or erroneous data on BRF can heighten risk of adverse reactions and compromise patient safety. Aim of study was to assess level of completion of BRFs by clinicians and to evaluate root cause analysis (RCA) of incompleteness of BRFs and factors leading to their rejection.
Materials and Methods
This prospective study was carried out from February 2024 to April 2024 on BRFs received in the blood centre. They were audited and RCA for factors leading to their incompleteness and rejection were analysed.
Results
Total number of BRFs received in blood centre was 14,468. 13,358 (92.3%) BRFs were accepted and 1,110 (7.7%) BRFs were rejected. 12,804 (95.85%) of accepted BRFs were incomplete. Weight was the most common missing parameter (89% {n = 11403}) while name of the requesting clinician was least common (2.5% {n-318}). 3.52% n = 510) BRFs were rejected due to mismatch in name and patient registration number on BRF and samples. 0.14% n = 21) BRFs were rejected due to hemolysed samples. RCA for incompleteness of BRFs showed that main reason was manpower (61–83%) while environment was least common (17–67%). RCA for rejection of BRFs showed that environment was most common cause (13.3–80.15%) while manpower was least common (9–19.85%).
Conclusion
Regular audits and personnel training, and quality assurance measures can help identify and address deficiencies in BRF completion to enhance patient safety and reduce incidence of transfusion-related errors and complications.
期刊介绍：
Transfusion Clinique et Biologique, the official journal of the French Society of Blood Transfusion (SFTS):
- an aid to training, at a European level
- the only French journal indexed in the hematology and immunology sections of Current Contents
Transfusion Clinique et Biologique spans fundamental research and everyday practice, with articles coming from both sides. Articles, reviews, case reports, letters to the editor and editorials are published in 4 editions a year, in French or in English, covering all scientific and medical aspects of transfusion: immunology, hematology, infectious diseases, genetics, molecular biology, etc. And finally, a convivial cross-disciplinary section on training and information offers practical updates.
Readership:
"Transfusers" are many and various: anesthetists, biologists, hematologists, and blood-bank, ICU and mobile emergency specialists...
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
