Adding Automation and Independent Dual Verification to Reduce Wrong Blood in Tube (WBIT) Events

Informing the State of Process Modeling and Automation of Blood Banking and Transfusion Services Through a Systematic Mapping Study

Purpose

The current state of the art in process modeling of blood banking and transfusion services is not well grounded; methodological reviews are lacking to bridge the gap between such blood banking and transfusion processes (and their models) and their automation. This research aims to fill this gap with a methodological review.

Methods

A systematic mapping study was adopted, driven by five key research questions. Identified research studies were accepted based on fulfilling the following inclusion criteria: 1) research studies should focus on blood banking and transfusion process modeling since the late 1970s; and 2) research studies should focus on process automation in relation to workflow-based systems, with papers classified into categories in line with the analysis undertaken to answer each of the research questions.

Results

The search identified 22 papers related to modeling and automation of blood banking and transfusion, published in the period 1979-2022. The findings revealed that only four process modeling languages were reported to visualize process workflows. The preparation of blood components, serologic testing, blood distribution, apheresis, preparation for emergencies, maintaining blood banking and transfusion safety, and documentation have not been reported to have been modeled in the literature. This review revealed the lack of use of Business Process Modeling Notation (BPMN) as the industry standard process modeling language in the domain. The review also indicated a deficiency in modeling specialized processes in blood banking and transfusion, with the majority of reported processes being described as high level, but lacking elaboration. Automation was reported to improve transfusion safety, and to reduce cost, time cycle, and human errors.

Conclusion

The work highlights the non-existence of a developed process architectural framework for blood banking and transfusion processes, which is needed to lay the groundwork for identifying and modeling strategic, managerial, and operational processes to bridge the gap with their enactment in healthcare systems. This paves the way for the development of a data-harvesting platform for blood banking and transfusion services.

How do we ensure a safe ABO recheck process?

BACKGROUND

Collecting a patient's blood in a correctly labeled pretransfusion specimen tube is essential for accurate ABO typing and safe transfusion. Noncompliance with specimen collection procedures can lead to wrong blood in tube (WBIT) incidents with potentially fatal consequences. Recent WBIT events inspired the investigation of how various institutions currently reduce the risk of these errors and ensure accurate ABO typing of patient samples.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This article describes the techniques employed at various institutions across the United States to mitigate the risk of misidentified pretransfusion patient specimens. Details and considerations for each of these measures are provided.

RESULTS

Several institutions require the order for an ABO confirmation specimen, if indicated, to be generated from the transfusion medicine (TM) laboratory. Others issue a dedicated collection tube that is available exclusively from the TM service. Many institutions employ barcoding for electronic positive patient identification. Some use a combination of these strategies, depending on the locations or service lines from which the specimens are collected.

CONCLUSION

The description of various WBIT mitigation strategies will inform TM services on practices that may be effective at their respective institutions. Irrespective of the method(s) utilized, institutions should continue to monitor and mitigate specimen misidentification errors to promote sustained safe transfusion practices.