pISSN 2234-3806eISSN 2234-3814
Table. 2.
Summary of the survey to blood bank physicians (N=64)
| Questionnaire | N of respondents (%) |
|---|---|
| Presence of RBC transfusion guidelines | |
| Yes | 63 (98.4) |
| No | 1 (1.6) |
| Contents of RBC transfusion guidelines |
|
| Shipping and receiving RBC units from the blood center | 51 (79.7) |
| Storage temperature of RBC unit in the blood bank | 62 (96.9) |
| Transport of RBC units to the ward after issue | 56 (87.5) |
| RBC transfusion | 51 (81.3) |
| Standards for discard of RBC unit after issue |
63 (98.4) |
| Criteria for discard of RBC units after issue or within the blood bank in RBC transfusion guidelines |
63 (98.4) |
| Exposure to RT for over 30 minutes | 62 (96.9) |
| ST of RBC units to reach 10°C | 34 (53.1) |
| Damaged RBC units | 56 (87.5) |
| Contaminated RBC units | 53 (82.8) |
| Withdrawal of RBC transfusion due to the change of patient’s condition | 39 (60.9) |
| Transfusion-related adverse reactions | 48 (75.0) |
| Transport container to ward after issue | |
| Cooler only | 22 (34.4) |
| Cooler with refrigerant | 31 (48.4) |
| Cooler with refrigerant and TI | 1 (1.6) |
| Others (e.g., cool bag, plastic box, plastic bag) | 10 (15.6) |
| ST monitoring of RBC units at transport after issue | 1 (1.6) |
| Total numbers of blood refrigerators at ward or outpatient clinic | 55 (85.9) |
| 1 | 26 (47.3) |
| 2 | 12 (21.8) |
| 3 | 3 (5.5) |
| ≥4 | 14 (25.4) |
| Ward with blood refrigerator |
55 (85.9) |
| GW | 3 (5.5) |
| ICU | 21 (38.2) |
| OR | 52 (94.5) |
| ED | 20 (36.4) |
| OC | 1 (1.8) |
| Crossmatching tests in 2018 |
|
| < 1,000 | 2 (3.2) |
| 1,000–4,999 | 10 (15.9) |
| 5,000–9,999 | 13 (20.6) |
| 10,000–49,999 | 32 (50.8) |
| 50,000–99,999 | 5 (7.9) |
| ≥ 100,000 | 1 (1.6) |
| RBC units issued in 2018 |
|
| < 500 | 1 (1.6) |
| 500–999 | 3 (4.8) |
| 1,000–4,999 | 9 (41.3) |
| 5,000–9,999 | 21 (33.3) |
| 10,000–49,999 | 26 (41.3) |
| ≥ 50,000 | 3 (4.8) |
| RBC wastage in 2018 |
|
| <5 | 6 (9.5) |
| 5–9 | 10 (15.9) |
| 10–19 | 11 (17.5) |
| 20–49 | 16 (25.4) |
| 50–99 | 15 (23.8) |
| 100–199 | 4 (6.3) |
| ≥ 200 | 1 (1.6) |
| C:T ratio in 2018 |
|
| 1.0 to < 1.1 | 28 (44.4) |
| 1.1 to < 1.2 | 16 (25.4) |
| 1.2 to < 1.3 | 7 (11.1) |
| 1.3 to < 1.4 | 3 (4.8) |
| ≥ 1.4 | 9 (14.3) |
| Expected utility of TIs to reduce RBC wastage | |
| High utility | 43 (67.2) |
| Low utility | 21 (32.8) |
| Reasons of expected low utility of TIs to reduce RBC wastage |
21 (32.8) |
| Low RBC wastage due to violation of the 30-minute rule | 17 (81.0) |
| Possibility to increase RBC wastage due to a too-fast color change of TIs | 11 (52.4) |
| Intra- or inter-observer variability in reading a color change of TIs | 7 (33.3) |
*Multiple choice; †The number of respondents was 63, excluding one from a newly opened hospital (<1 year).
Abbreviations: RBC, red blood cell; RT, room temperature; TI, temperature-sensitive indicator; ST, surface temperature; GW, general ward; ICU, intensive care unit; OR, operating room; ED, emergency department; OC, outpatient clinic; C:T ratio, crossmatch to transfusion ratio.
Ann Lab Med 2022;42:342~351 https://doi.org/10.3343/alm.2022.42.3.342
© Ann Lab Med