ArticleCureus2025
Improving Documentation Quality of Blood Transfusion Request Forms: A Two-Cycle Quality Improvement Initiative at a Tertiary Hospital in Sudan.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProper completion of blood transfusion request forms is vital for patient safety and quality assurance. Inadequate documentation increases the risk of transfusion errors, medico-legal complications, and compromised patient outcomes. Objective: To assess and improve the completeness and accuracy of blood transfusion request forms at Dongola Teaching Hospital through a two-cycle quality improvement initiative that included both evaluation and implementation phases. Methods: This two-cycle closed-loop clinical audit, conducted as a quality improvement project, incorporated retrospective and prospective elements and was guided by the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) model. In the first cycle, 50 transfusion request forms were reviewed (May 2025). Deficiencies were identified, and a standardized form was introduced with staff training. In the second cycle (September 2025), 42 forms were audited against the same benchmarks. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and comparative proportions with significance testing (p<0.05). Results: Significant improvements were observed across most documentation parameters. Patient demographics, clinical details, and laboratory information showed marked gains between the first cycle (n = 50) and the second cycle (n = 40): date of birth (35 [87.8%]), file number (39 [97.6%]), current Hb level (40 [100%]), and transfusion indication (33 [82.9%]). Laboratory documentation also improved substantially, including the collector's signature (39 [97.6%]) and collection date/time (39 [97.6%]). However, a slight decline was noted in the documentation of the number of units requested (34 [85.4%]). Conclusion: The intervention significantly improved form completeness and accuracy, enhancing transfusion safety and compliance with international standards. Continuous monitoring, regular feedback, and periodic re-audits are essential to sustain these improvements over time.
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.