了解术中输血决策的可变性:一项定性研究

IF 2.7 2区 医学 Q2 HEMATOLOGY Transfusion Medicine Reviews Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1016/j.tmrv.2023.150726
Tori Lenet , Joseph Tropiano , Stephanie Skanes , Victoria Ivankovic , Michael Verret , Daniel I McIsaac , Alan Tinmouth , Stuart G Nicholls , Andrea M Patey , Dean A Fergusson , Guillaume Martel
{"title":"了解术中输血决策的可变性:一项定性研究","authors":"Tori Lenet ,&nbsp;Joseph Tropiano ,&nbsp;Stephanie Skanes ,&nbsp;Victoria Ivankovic ,&nbsp;Michael Verret ,&nbsp;Daniel I McIsaac ,&nbsp;Alan Tinmouth ,&nbsp;Stuart G Nicholls ,&nbsp;Andrea M Patey ,&nbsp;Dean A Fergusson ,&nbsp;Guillaume Martel","doi":"10.1016/j.tmrv.2023.150726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>There is evidence of significant intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion variability that cannot be explained by case-mix, and may reflect unwarranted transfusions. The objective was to explore the source of intraoperative RBC transfusion variability by eliciting the beliefs of anesthesiologists and surgeons that underlie transfusion decisions. Interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted to identify beliefs about intraoperative transfusion. Content analysis was performed to group statements into domains. Relevant domains were selected based on frequency of beliefs, perceived influence on transfusion, and the presence of conflicting beliefs within domains. Of the 28 transfusion experts recruited internationally (16 anesthesiologists, 12 surgeons), 24 (86%) were Canadian or American and 11 (39%) identified as female. Eight relevant domains were identified: (1) <em>Knowledge</em> (insufficient evidence to guide intraoperative transfusion), (2) <em>Social/professional role and identity</em> (surgeons/anesthesiologists share responsibility for transfusions), (3) <em>Beliefs about consequences</em> (concerns about morbidity of transfusion/anemia), (4) <em>Environmental context/resources</em> (transfusions influenced by type of surgery, local blood supply, cost of transfusion), (5) <em>Social influences</em> (institutional culture, judgment by peers, surgeon-anesthesiologist relationship, patient preference influencing transfusion decisions), (6) <em>Behavioral regulation</em> (need for intraoperative transfusion guidelines, usefulness of audits and educational sessions to guide transfusion), (7) <em>Nature of the behaviors</em> (overtransfusion remains commonplace, transfusion practice becoming more restrictive over time), and (8) <em>Memory, attention, and decision processes</em> (various patient and operative characteristics are incorporated into transfusion decisions). This study identified a range of factors underlying intraoperative transfusion decision-making and partly explain the variability in transfusion behavior. Targeted theory-informed behavior-change interventions derived from this work could help reduce intraoperative transfusion variability.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56081,"journal":{"name":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","volume":"37 2","pages":"Article 150726"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding Intraoperative Transfusion Decision-Making Variability: A Qualitative Study\",\"authors\":\"Tori Lenet ,&nbsp;Joseph Tropiano ,&nbsp;Stephanie Skanes ,&nbsp;Victoria Ivankovic ,&nbsp;Michael Verret ,&nbsp;Daniel I McIsaac ,&nbsp;Alan Tinmouth ,&nbsp;Stuart G Nicholls ,&nbsp;Andrea M Patey ,&nbsp;Dean A Fergusson ,&nbsp;Guillaume Martel\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.tmrv.2023.150726\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>There is evidence of significant intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion variability that cannot be explained by case-mix, and may reflect unwarranted transfusions. The objective was to explore the source of intraoperative RBC transfusion variability by eliciting the beliefs of anesthesiologists and surgeons that underlie transfusion decisions. Interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted to identify beliefs about intraoperative transfusion. Content analysis was performed to group statements into domains. Relevant domains were selected based on frequency of beliefs, perceived influence on transfusion, and the presence of conflicting beliefs within domains. Of the 28 transfusion experts recruited internationally (16 anesthesiologists, 12 surgeons), 24 (86%) were Canadian or American and 11 (39%) identified as female. Eight relevant domains were identified: (1) <em>Knowledge</em> (insufficient evidence to guide intraoperative transfusion), (2) <em>Social/professional role and identity</em> (surgeons/anesthesiologists share responsibility for transfusions), (3) <em>Beliefs about consequences</em> (concerns about morbidity of transfusion/anemia), (4) <em>Environmental context/resources</em> (transfusions influenced by type of surgery, local blood supply, cost of transfusion), (5) <em>Social influences</em> (institutional culture, judgment by peers, surgeon-anesthesiologist relationship, patient preference influencing transfusion decisions), (6) <em>Behavioral regulation</em> (need for intraoperative transfusion guidelines, usefulness of audits and educational sessions to guide transfusion), (7) <em>Nature of the behaviors</em> (overtransfusion remains commonplace, transfusion practice becoming more restrictive over time), and (8) <em>Memory, attention, and decision processes</em> (various patient and operative characteristics are incorporated into transfusion decisions). This study identified a range of factors underlying intraoperative transfusion decision-making and partly explain the variability in transfusion behavior. Targeted theory-informed behavior-change interventions derived from this work could help reduce intraoperative transfusion variability.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56081,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transfusion Medicine Reviews\",\"volume\":\"37 2\",\"pages\":\"Article 150726\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transfusion Medicine Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887796323000160\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEMATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transfusion Medicine Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0887796323000160","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEMATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

有证据表明术中红细胞(RBC)输注存在显著的变异性,这不能用病例组合来解释,可能反映了不必要的输注。目的是通过引起麻醉师和外科医生的信念来探索术中红细胞输注变异性的来源,这些信念是输注决策的基础。基于理论领域框架进行访谈,以确定对术中输血的看法。执行内容分析是为了将语句分组到域中。根据信念的频率、对输血的感知影响以及领域内存在冲突的信念来选择相关领域。在国际招募的28名输血专家中(16名麻醉师,12名外科医生),24名(86%)是加拿大人或美国人,11名(39%)是女性。确定了八个相关领域:(1)知识(没有足够的证据指导术中输血),(2)社会/职业角色和身份(外科医生/麻醉师分担输血责任),(3)对后果的信念(对输血/贫血发病率的担忧),(4)环境背景/资源(受手术类型、当地血液供应、输血成本影响的输血),(5)社会影响(机构文化、同行的判断、外科医生与麻醉师的关系、影响输血决策的患者偏好),(6)行为调节(需要术中输血指南、审计和教育课程来指导输血),(7)行为的性质(过度输血仍然很常见,随着时间的推移,输血实践变得越来越严格),以及(8)记忆、注意力,以及决策过程(将各种患者和手术特征纳入输血决策中)。本研究确定了术中输血决策的一系列因素,并部分解释了输血行为的可变性。从这项工作中得出的有针对性的理论知情行为改变干预措施可以帮助减少术中输血的可变性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Understanding Intraoperative Transfusion Decision-Making Variability: A Qualitative Study

There is evidence of significant intraoperative red blood cell (RBC) transfusion variability that cannot be explained by case-mix, and may reflect unwarranted transfusions. The objective was to explore the source of intraoperative RBC transfusion variability by eliciting the beliefs of anesthesiologists and surgeons that underlie transfusion decisions. Interviews based on the Theoretical Domains Framework were conducted to identify beliefs about intraoperative transfusion. Content analysis was performed to group statements into domains. Relevant domains were selected based on frequency of beliefs, perceived influence on transfusion, and the presence of conflicting beliefs within domains. Of the 28 transfusion experts recruited internationally (16 anesthesiologists, 12 surgeons), 24 (86%) were Canadian or American and 11 (39%) identified as female. Eight relevant domains were identified: (1) Knowledge (insufficient evidence to guide intraoperative transfusion), (2) Social/professional role and identity (surgeons/anesthesiologists share responsibility for transfusions), (3) Beliefs about consequences (concerns about morbidity of transfusion/anemia), (4) Environmental context/resources (transfusions influenced by type of surgery, local blood supply, cost of transfusion), (5) Social influences (institutional culture, judgment by peers, surgeon-anesthesiologist relationship, patient preference influencing transfusion decisions), (6) Behavioral regulation (need for intraoperative transfusion guidelines, usefulness of audits and educational sessions to guide transfusion), (7) Nature of the behaviors (overtransfusion remains commonplace, transfusion practice becoming more restrictive over time), and (8) Memory, attention, and decision processes (various patient and operative characteristics are incorporated into transfusion decisions). This study identified a range of factors underlying intraoperative transfusion decision-making and partly explain the variability in transfusion behavior. Targeted theory-informed behavior-change interventions derived from this work could help reduce intraoperative transfusion variability.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Transfusion Medicine Reviews
Transfusion Medicine Reviews 医学-血液学
CiteScore
11.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
40
审稿时长
21 days
期刊介绍: Transfusion Medicine Reviews provides an international forum in English for the publication of scholarly work devoted to the various sub-disciplines that comprise Transfusion Medicine including hemostasis and thrombosis and cellular therapies. The scope of the journal encompasses basic science, practical aspects, laboratory developments, clinical indications, and adverse effects.
期刊最新文献
Single vs Double-Unit Transfusion in Patients With Hematological Disorders Undergoing Chemotherapy or Stem Cell Transplantation: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis. Whole Blood Donor Iron Management Across Europe: Experiences and Challenges in Four Blood Establishments Single-Unit Transfusion Policy in Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation: Less is Not Worse Ultra-Massive Transfusion: Predictors of Occurrence and In-Hospital mortality From the Australian and New Zealand Massive Transfusion Registry (ANZ-MTR) Beta-Amyloid Related Neurodegenerative and Neurovascular Diseases: Potential Implications for Transfusion Medicine
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1