Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39279676›Full record

ArticleTransfusion2024

Challenges in reliable preoperative blood ordering: A qualitative interview study.

Phillip Yang, Emma P Zijlstra, Bruce L Hall, Stephen H Gregory, Ronald Jackups, Jing Li, Joanna Abraham, Sunny S Lou

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Transfusion, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07223853 (Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Preoperative Blood Management), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

NCT07223853 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2025, after this paper: background citation

Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Preoperative Blood Management: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorWashington University School of MedicineRan2025 to 2027Enrolled50ConditionsSurgeryArmsS-PATH clinical decision support system, Usual care
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

8 authors.

Phillip YangDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Emma P ZijlstraDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Bruce L HallDepartment of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Stephen H GregoryDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Ronald JackupsDepartment of Pathology and Immunology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Jing LiDivision of General Medical Sciences, Department of Medicine, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Joanna AbrahamDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Sunny S LouDepartment of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4215-605X

Funding

Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Perioperative Blood ManagementK23HL166880 · NHLBI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Sunny S. Lou · 2024 to 2026
$521k
International Anesthesia Research SocietyNHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL166880School of Medicine, Washington University in St. Louis
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPresurgical blood orders are important for patient safety during surgery, but excess orders can be costly to patients and the healthcare system. We aimed to assess clinician perceptions on the presurgical blood ordering process and perceived barriers to reliable decision-making.

methodsThis descriptive qualitative study was conducted at a single large academic medical center. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurse anesthetists, nurse practitioners working in preoperative assessment clinics, and transfusion medicine physicians to assess perceptions of current blood ordering processes. Interview responses were analyzed using an inductive open coding approach followed by thematic analysis.

resultsTwenty-three clinicians were interviewed. Clinicians felt that the current blood ordering process was frequently inconsistent. One contributor was a lack of information on surgical transfusion risk, related to lack of experience in ordering clinicians, insufficient communication between stakeholders, high turnover in academic settings, and lack of awareness of the maximum surgical blood ordering schedule. Other contributors included differing opinions about the benefits and harms of over- and under-preparing blood products, leading to variation in transfusion risk thresholds between clinicians, and disagreement about the safety of emergency-release blood.

conclusionSeveral barriers to reliable decision-making for presurgical blood orders exist. Future efforts to improve ordering consistency may benefit from improved information sharing between stakeholders and education on safe transfusion practices.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionQualitative ResearchFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMalePreoperative Careblood managementclinician practice patternsperioperative medicinetransfusion practices (adult)

Identifiers

PMID39279676
PMCPMC11928323

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.