ArticleBMJ open quality2024
Improving appropriate use of intravenous albumin: results of a single-centre audit and multifaceted intervention.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIntravenous albumin has limited indications supported by randomised controlled trials, yet it is often prescribed for indications not supported by evidence.
aimTo reduce unnecessary transfusion of albumin.
interventionsUnder the leadership of a multidisciplinary quality improvement team, evidence-based recommendations were disseminated in tandem with a new electronic order set, an educational strategy, qualitative interviews with prescribers and a return policy change to reduce wastage. IMPLEMENTATION AND EVALUATION: Interventions were introduced in a staggered fashion. The primary outcome, appropriate use of albumin, was monitored and quantified using pre-intervention and post-intervention audits. Process measures included statistical process run charts of monthly usage of 5% and 25% albumin and wastage. Data on length of stay (hospital and intensive care), new inpatient starts on kidney replacement and mortality were collected as balancing measures.
resultsAppropriate albumin usage based on indication increased from 30% to 50% (p<0.0001). There was significantly less overall albumin usage in the post-intervention period compared with the pre-intervention period (negative coefficient, p<0.0001), driven by a major reduction in the utilisation of the 5% formulation (p<0.0001). Overall albumin usage was significantly lower in the post-intervention period, decreasing from 800 to 450 vials per month. The intervention resulted in significantly less wastage (negative coefficient, p=0.017). Mortality, length of stay and new starts on kidney replacement therapy remained constant throughout the study period.
conclusionImproved prescribing of albumin was achieved with a multifaceted approach. Substantial and sustained reductions in usage were achieved without negatively impacting patient-important outcomes. The estimated annual savings for the purchase cost of albumin was CAN $300 000. We provide a structured process for other organisations to optimise their use of albumin.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.