ArticleTransfusion2026
Electronic patient blood management monitoring using routine health record data: A proof-of-principle study monitoring perioperative tranexamic acid use.
Article in Transfusion, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundMonitoring Patient Blood Management (PBM) practices against evidence-based standards is essential for quality improvement; however, current approaches are limited. In the UK, perioperative tranexamic acid (TXA) use is a national quality standard, yet monitoring relies on manual audit cycles that are resource-intensive and limited in scope. We evaluated whether an audit could be automated using routinely collected electronic health record (EHR) data.
methodsWe performed a retrospective study at a tertiary NHS center using linked perioperative and transfusion datasets. Automated compliance indicators were constructed using coded procedures (denominator) and digitally documented TXA administration from WHO Surgical Safety Checklists and electronic prescribing records (numerator). A structured validation framework assessed data extractability, completeness, denominator coverage, coding accuracy, and concordance between electronic sources. Outputs were assessed by specialty and procedure and compared with contemporaneous manual audit findings.
resultsBetween July-September 2025, 800 eligible procedures were identified. Comparison with an independent dataset demonstrated procedural coverage of 96.2% and miscoding rate of 3.9%. Overall automated TXA compliance was 86.3%. Concordance between WHO checklist and electronic prescription was 74.2%, with explainable discordance patterns. Substantial inter-specialty variation was identified, ranging from 98.2% (trauma and orthopedics) to 0% (vascular surgery). Compared with October-December 2024, overall compliance increased by 7.6%. DISCUSSION: Automated EHR-based audit of perioperative TXA compliance is feasible and demonstrates good validity. Structured validation confirmed data reliability, and full-population extraction revealed granular specialty- and procedure-level variation, likely undetectable by manual audits, supporting its wider evaluation as a continuous PBM quality monitoring tool.
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.