Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31206060›Full record

ArticleBMJ open quality2019

Reducing two-unit red cell transfusions on the oncology ward: a choosing wisely initiative.

Alan Gob, Anurag Bhalla, Laura Aseltine, Ian Chin-Yee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open quality, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Anemia diagnosis and therapy in malignant diseases: implementation of guidelines-a representative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Alan GobMedicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Anurag BhallaMedicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Laura AseltinePathology and Laboratory Medicine, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada.
Ian Chin-YeeMedicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background/context: Despite Choosing Wisely recommendations for single unit red blood cell transfusion orders, ~50% of orders on the oncology ward at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) were for two units. The oncology ward at LHSC is a 60 bed tertiary care unit. In mid 2016, LHSC was 18 months into its implementation of computerised provider order entry (CPOE). Aim/objectives: By December 2017, increase the proportion of one-unit red cell transfusion orders on the oncology ward from 50% to 80. Measures: Outcome: % one-unit red cell transfusion orders (aggregated monthly). Improvement/innovation/change ideas: Our initial theory was that unawareness of the guidelines (established in 2014) and subscription to the obsolete doctrine of two-unit transfusions were the primary behavioural drivers. Initial change ideas included an educational/awareness blitz including rounds presentations, memos and posters. Failure led us to revisit our hypothesis and carry out a real-time audit, where our team was notified on each two-unit transfusion. This revealed the true root cause: the overwhelming majority of two-unit transfusions could be traced back to standing orders that were entered on an admission order set. After provider engagement, we proceeded to remove all admission order sets containing two-unit transfusions. Impact/lessons learned/results: After order set removal, our one-unit transfusion rate rose to 86% and was sustained for 17 months. We learnt two primary lessons. First that CPOE and poor order set design combined to perpetuate poor ordering practices. Second that revisiting our hypothesis and engaging in thoughtful root cause analysis that included direct observation ultimately led to an effective, sustainable solution. Discussion/spread: Our study underscores the importance of executing root cause analysis on a microsystem level. We would expect the factors driving poor performance to be completely different on a service such as general internal medicine. Our study also highlights the potential pitfalls of CPOE and the importance of regular order set review to ensure adherence to current evidence.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionHospitalizationHumansLondonNeoplasmsOncology Service, HospitalQuality ImprovementTreatment Outcomecontrol charts/run chartshealthcare quality improvementimplementation scienceinformation technologyroot cause analysis

Identifiers

PMID31206060
PMCPMC6542431

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.