Electronic clinical decision support: Evidence that default settings influence end-user behavior

Harnessing the potential of data-driven strategies to optimise transfusion practice

No one doubts the significant variation in the practice of transfusion medicine. Common examples are the variability in transfusion thresholds and the use of tranexamic acid for surgery with likely high blood loss despite evidence-based standards. There is a long history of applying different strategies to address this variation, including education, clinical guidelines, audit and feedback, but the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of these initiatives remains unclear. Advances in computerised decision support systems and the application of novel electronic capabilities offer alternative approaches to improving transfusion practice. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Research funded a Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) programme focussing on 'A data-enabled programme of research to improve transfusion practices'. The overarching aim of the BTRU is to accelerate the development of data-driven methods to optimise the use of blood and transfusion alternatives, and to integrate them within routine practice to improve patient outcomes. One particular area of focus is implementation science to address variation in practice.

Transfusion Preparedness in the Labor and Delivery Unit: An Initiative to Improve Safety and Cost

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate patient safety, resource utilization, and transfusion-related cost after a policy change from universal type and screen to selective type and screen on admission to labor and delivery.

METHODS

Between October 2017 and September 2019, we performed a single-center implementation study focusing on risk-based type and screen instead of universal type and screen. Implementation of our policy was October 2018 and compared 1 year preimplementation with 1 year postimplementation. Patients were risk-stratified in alignment with California Maternal Quality Care Collaborative recommendations. Under the new policy, the blood bank holds a blood sample for processing (hold clot) on patients at low- and medium-risk of hemorrhage. Type and screen and crossmatch are obtained on high-risk patients or with a prior positive antibody screen. We collected patient outcomes, safety and cost data, and compliance and resource utilization metrics. Cost included direct costs of transfusion-related testing in the labor and delivery unit during the study period, from a health system perspective.

RESULTS

In 1 year postimplementation, there were no differences in emergency-release transfusion events (4 vs 3, P>.99). There were fewer emergency-release red blood cell (RBC) units transfused (9 vs 24, P=.002) and O-negative RBC units transfused (8 vs 18, P=.016) postimplementation compared with preimplementation. Hysterectomies (0.05% vs 0.1%, P=.44) and intensive care unit admissions (0.45% vs 0.51%, P=.43) were not different postimplementation compared with preimplementation. Postimplementation, mean monthly type and screen-related costs (ABO typing, antibody screen, and antibody workup costs) were lower, $9,753 compared with $20,676 in the preimplementation year, P<.001.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of selective type and screen policy in the labor and delivery unit was associated with projected annual savings of $181,000 in an institution with 4,000 deliveries per year, without evidence of increased maternal morbidity.