How well does your massive transfusion protocol perform? A scoping review of quality indicators

Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, Westmead Hospital, Sydney, Australia. NHS Blood and Transplant, Oxford, United Kingdom. Transfusion Research Unit, Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Department of Haematology, Monash Health, Melbourne, Australia.

Blood transfusion = Trasfusione del sangue. 2020
Full text from:
BACKGROUND Management of patients with major haemorrhage often requires urgent administration of multiple blood products, commonly termed a massive transfusion (MT). Clinical practice in these scenarios is supported in part by evidence-based MT guidelines, which typically recommend use of an MT protocol (MTP). MTPs aim to provide practical and specific interpretation of MT guidelines for local institutional use, outlining tasks and pre-configuration of blood product packs to be transfused to provide efficient and evidence-based transfusion management. Institutions can support this aim by the measurement of MTP performance and patient outcomes through collection of quality indicators (QI). Many international guidelines now recommend the routine collection of a range of QIs relating to MT/MTP; however, there is significant variation in procedures and no benchmarks or minimal evidence to guide practice. MATERIALS AND METHODS We conducted a scoping review to document and evaluate reported QIs for MTP. We conducted a search of CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE for published studies from inception until May 14, 2020, that reported at least one MTP QI and use of an MTP or equivalent protocol. Included studies were evaluated using a QI classification system based on current MT QI guidelines and the Donabedian QI framework. RESULTS We identified 107 eligible studies. Trauma patients were the most commonly evaluated group, and total blood products transfused and in-hospital mortality were the most commonly reported QIs. Reflecting the lack of international consensus and benchmarks, we found significant variability in the reporting of QIs, which often did not reflect guideline recommendations. DISCUSSION Our review highlights the importance of establishing international consensus on prioritised QIs with quantifiable targets that are important to the process of MT.
Study details
Study Design : Systematic Review
Language : eng
Credits : Bibliographic data from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine