Assessing Blood Administering Practices

The risk that a red blood cell unit will be associated with an ABO-incompatible transfusion is currently slightly greater than the aggregate risk of acquiring human immunodeficiency virus, human T-cell lymphotropic virus, hepatitis B virus, or hepatitis C virus by transfusion. Since the most common cause for ABO-incompatible transfusion is the failure of transfusionists to properly identify a patient or a blood component before a transfusion, transfusion services are encouraged to evaluate and monitor the processes of dispensing and administering blood. In addition, a proposal of the Health Care Financing Administration of the Department of Health and Human Services would require hospitals to use a data-driven quality assessment and performance improvement program that evaluates the dispensing and administering of blood and that ensures that each blood product and each intended recipient is positively identified before transfusion. The Los Angeles County+University of Southern California Medical Center assesses the blood dispensing and administering process as proposed by the Health Care Financing Administration. During the fourth quarter of 1997, 85 blood transfusions were assessed for compliance with the Los Angeles County+University of Southern California Medical Center policies and procedures: 55 transfusion episodes had no variance from institutional protocol and 30 had one or more variances. Of the transfusions with at least one variance, 16 had one or more variances involving the identification of the patient, the component, or the paperwork. The remaining 14 transfusions had one or more variances involving other criteria (nonidentification items). The most frequent variance was the failure to document vital signs during the first 15 minutes after a transfusion was started or after 50 mL of a component had been transfused. No variances in patient or blood component identification were noted in nursing units whose staff routinely performed self-assessment of blood administering practices. Based on these findings, a corrective action plan was implemented. Follow-up assessments (n = 63) were conducted after 3 months (during the second quarter of 1998). The compliance with the pretransfusion identification protocol improved from 81% to 95%. The most common reason for noncompliance continued to be a lack of checking vital signs. This report demonstrates the value of using a data-driven program that assesses blood administering practices.