ArticleTransfusion2024
Challenges in reliable preoperative blood ordering: A qualitative interview study.
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.
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.
Intelligent Clinical Decision Support for Preoperative Blood Management: A Cluster-Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multicenter Validation of a Machine Learning Model for Surgical Transfusion Risk at 45 US Hospitals.JAMA network open · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
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
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.