Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42091447›Full record

ArticleVox sanguinis2026

Staff satisfaction with the use of bedside electronic transfusion checks at three hospitals in London.

Florence Oyekan, Montasir Ahmed, Catherine Booth, Louise Bowles, Ollie Djurdjevic, Yan Feng, Kirsty Hancock, Suzanne Makki, Helinor McAleese, Josephine McCullagh and 5 more

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Vox sanguinis, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Blood transfusion: Not always as safe as you think.British journal of haematology · 2026
    Article
  3. 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

15 authors.

Florence OyekanBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Montasir AhmedWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0523-5880
Catherine BoothBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Louise BowlesBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Ollie DjurdjevicBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Yan FengWolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Kirsty HancockBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Suzanne MakkiBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Helinor McAleeseBarts Health NHS Trust, London, UK.
Josephine McCullaghBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4598-1979
Khin MonBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Michael F MurphyNHS Blood and Transplant, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2375-7503
Simon J StanworthNHS Blood and Transplant, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7414-4950
Nathan ProudloveAllliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1176-8088
Laura GreenBlizard Institute, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.

Funding

Barts CharityNHS Charities Together
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

objectivesBedside transfusion errors, especially positive patient identification (PPID), are a risk to patient safety. Bedside electronic transfusion checks (BETC), using barcode-enabled personal digital assistants (PDAs), are recommended to improve safety and efficiency. This study assessed staff satisfaction with BETC versus manual transfusion checks in three large London hospitals. The surveys aimed to compare clinical staff satisfaction with BETC versus the manual system. MATERIALS AND

methodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted immediately after training and 6 months after routine BETC use. The initial (21 questions) and follow-up (15 questions) surveys assessed usability, accuracy, workflow efficiency and patient care impact. Responses were collected via Microsoft Forms and analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression, adjusting for job role, experience and hospitals.

resultsA total of 2085 staff completed the initial survey (55% response) and 514 the follow-up (13%), predominantly nurses (75%). For group and screen (G&S) labelling, ratings of 'ease of use' and 'accuracy' improved significantly between surveys, while perceived impact on reducing mislabelling remained consistently high (96.2% vs. 94.7%). Compared with manual checks, BETC was rated significantly by clinicians for ease of use (89% → 94%) and accuracy (89% → 95%; both p < 0.001). Improvements were also observed for the time saved by clinical staff (75% → 89%), patient care (77% → 89%), fewer nurses required (79% → 91%) and traceability (80% → 87%), all statistically significant (p < 0.001).

conclusionBETC was associated with significantly greater clinical staff satisfaction than manual transfusion checks, providing large-scale evidence for their adoption to enhance transfusion safety, efficiency and staff experience.

Indexed as

Blood TransfusionPatient Identification SystemsPoint-of-Care SystemsCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHospitalsHumansLondonMaleSurveys and Questionnairesbedside electronic transfusion checks (BETC)blood administrationpersonal digital assistant (PDA)positive patient identification (PPID)sample labellingstaff satisfaction and perspectivesurvey

Identifiers

PMID42091447
PMCPMC13453916

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.