Reducing Overuse of 3-Day Repeat Type and Screen Testing across an 11-Hospital Safety Net System

BACKGROUND

According to the American Association of Blood Banks, a Type and Screen (T&S) is valid for up to three calendar days. Beyond a limited number of clinical indications such as a transfusion reaction, repeat T&S testing within 3 days is not warranted. Inappropriate repeat T&S testing is a costly medical waste and can lead to patient harm.

OBJECTIVE

To reduce inappropriate duplicate T&S testing across a large, multihospital setting.

SETTING

The largest urban safety net health system in the USA, with 11 acute care hospitals.

INTERVENTIONS

Our first intervention involved adding the time elapsed since the last T&S order into the order and the process instructions that described when a T&S was indicated. The second intervention was a best practice advisory that triggered when T&S was ordered before the expiration of an active T&S.

MAIN MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was the number of duplicate inpatient T&S per 1000 patient days.

KEY RESULTS

Across all hospitals, the weekly average rate of duplicate T&S ordering decreased from 8.42 to 7.37 per 1000 patient days (12.5% reduction, p < 0.001) after the first intervention and to 4.32 per 1000 patient days (48.7% reduction, p < 0.001) after the second intervention. Using linear regression to compare pre-intervention to post-intervention 1, the level difference was - 2.46 (9.17 to 6.70, p < 0.001) and slope difference was 0.0001 (0.0282 to 0.0283, p = 1). For post-intervention 1 to post-intervention 2, the level difference was - 3.49 (8.06 to 4.58, p < 0.001) and slope difference was - 0.0428 (0.0283 to - 0.0145, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our intervention successfully reduced duplicate T&S testing using a two-pronged electronic health record intervention. The success of this low effort intervention across a diverse health system provides a framework for similar interventions in various clinical settings.

A multicenter prospective observational study on the use of type and screen method versus conventional type and crossmatch policy for pre-transfusion testing in the Indian population

Despite knowing the benefits of the type and screen (TS) method in pre-transfusion testing (PTT), most transfusion centers in developing countries continue to be reluctant to adopt a TS strategy over the conventional type and antihuman globulin (AHG) crossmatch (TX) policy in their routine laboratory practice because of the cost of obtaining antibody screening reagents. To generate strong evidence, this multicenter, observational study was conducted in which we collected data prospectively over a 1-year period from six major blood centers in India. The primary objective of this study was to identify the discordance between TS and TX results. A secondary objective was to identify the allo-antibody specificity in patients with positive antibody detection tests. All patients with orders for red blood cell transfusion who met patient selection criteria were subjected to parallel testing by column agglutination technology (CAT) for both the antibody detection test (screen) using a commercial three-cell panel and for the AHG crossmatch. A total of 21,842 patients were tested. In 148 patients with incompatible crossmatches, samples from six patients gave negative results with the antibody detection test, whereas the antibody detection test was positive in samples from 118 patients among the 21,694 crossmatch-compatible cases. The TS approach achieved a positive percent agreement of 95.95 and was found to be significantly effective in preventing the transfusion of serologically incompatible blood. The risk associated with abbreviating the AHG crossmatch was found to be 0.009 percent. Most of the identified clinically significant alloantibodies were directed to Rh antigens (D>E>c>C>e), followed by anti-K and anti-M. This study has generated sufficient robust data for the Indian population by including patients from all major geographical areas of the country and concluded a satisfactory agreement level as well as non-inferiority to the current PTT policy. Therefore, TS policy can be implemented in developing countries with no compromise on blood safety, provided sufficient technical and infrastructural support are available.

In the Era of Tranexamic Acid, are Type and Screens for Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty Obsolete?

BACKGROUND

Advances in technique and perioperative blood management have improved transfusion rates following unilateral primary total joint arthroplasty and led some centers to change their preoperative blood ordering protocols. The purpose of this study is to determine whether deleting type and screens (T&S) from preoperative order sets was safe for patients undergoing primary total knee (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) and to identify patients who required allogenic blood transfusion.

METHODS

Prospectively collected data were reviewed to identify any patient with a hemoglobin (Hgb) drawn within 30 days of surgery who received a transfusion following a unilateral primary TKA or THA.

RESULTS

A total of 1255 patients met inclusion criteria. Of the total, 682 (54%) were TKAs and 573 (46%) were THAs. The mean preoperative Hgb was 11.5 g/dL with an average delta Hgb of 3.6 g/dL on postoperative day 1. No patient required an intraoperative transfusion. Fourteen patients (mean age and body mass index, 67.9 and 29.0) required a transfusion (1.1%) for postoperative blood loss anemia. Of those transfused, 13 (93%) of the patients underwent THA with the mean estimated blood loss of 378.6 mL. The total cost for a patient obtaining a T&S is $191.27.

CONCLUSION

In our series, the risk of blood transfusion was rare (1.1%) and occurred only secondary to postoperative blood loss anemia. There were no cases of intraoperative complication requiring urgent or emergent blood transfusion. Removing T&S from standard order sets for patients undergoing primary TKA or THA appears to be a safe and cost-effective practice.

Prevalence of clinically significant antibodies in patients undergoing elective surgery in a Nigerian teaching hospital: A case for the type and screen method

Background

Provision of safe and adequate blood is challenging in our environment due to paucity of voluntary donors as well as inappropriate blood ordering and utilization. The type and screen (TS) method (typing of blood group and screening for antibodies) reduces the demand for blood reservation in hospital blood banks.

Aims

The aim of this study is to determine the safety (detection clinically significant antibodies) and cost effectiveness of the TS method compared to the conventional antiglobulin crossmatch (ACM).

Settings and Design and Methods

This was a cross-sectional prospective study carried out at the University of Port Harcourt Teaching Hospital (UPTH). 124 participants booked for elective surgeries with no history of blood transfusion or pregnancy were investigated. ACM was performed on all participants' serum against 159 donor red cells. TS was also performed blindly on the same participants' sera, antibody screening was done with three-screen-cells using the gel method. An 11-cell panel was used for antibody identification. Blood utilization was calculated using the crossmatch: transfusion ratio (CTR), probability of transfusion (%T) and transfusion index (TI).

Results

Out of the 159 units crossmatched for 124 study participants, only 19 were actually transfused (88.1% not utilized). The prevalence of compatible ACM was 100%, however the TS detected one antibody (0.81%) in a male participant identified as anti-M. The overall CTR, %T and TI were 8.4, 15.6% and 0.16 respectively, with N384,750 ($963.1) wastage in terms of cost. The TS method would have saved N266,000{$665.9} (N1900{4.78} per un-transfused patient).

Conclusions

There was improper utilization of blood in elective surgeries. The TS method identified an antibody not detected by ACM. This would have saved N266,000 {$665.9}, and reduced the demand for blood reservation in the bank. Although The TS method was found not to be significantly different in outcome compared to the ACM, it was found to be cost effective.

Advantages of type and screen policy: Perspective from a developing country!

INTRODUCTION:

The authors' center recently changed their pretransfusion testing protocol from “conventional” type and screen (TS) with anti-human globulin (AHG) crossmatch (Policy A) to TS with immediate-spin (IS) crossmatch (Policy B). Red blood cell (RBC) units were issued after compatible IS crossmatch as and when required instead of AHG crossmatch. This study was conducted to compare the effects of change of policy from A to B over 1-year period on crossmatch-to-transfusion (C/T) ratio, RBC issue turnaround time (TAT), outdating of RBC, man-hours consumption, and monetary savings.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This was a comparative, prospective study conducted by the Department of Transfusion Medicine of a tertiary hospital-based blood bank in Northern India. The Policy B was implemented in the department from January 2014. Relevant retrospective data for comparison of the previous 1 year, when Policy A was practiced, were derived from hospital information system.

RESULTS:

23909 and 24724 RBC units transfused to patients admitted to the hospital during respective 1-year period of practice for Policy A and B. There was significant reduction in C/T ratio (1.94 vs. 1.01) and RBC issue TAT (79 vs. 65 min) with Policy B. Expiry due to outdating reduced (37 vs. zero) along with man-hours (16% reduction) and monetary (33% reduction) savings.

CONCLUSION:

Use of 'TS with IS crossmatch' policy provides multiple advantages to all the stakeholders; blood banker, clinician, patient, and the hospital management.

First Indian study to establish safety of immediate-spin crossmatch for red blood cell transfusion in antibody screen-negative recipients

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES:

The US Food and Drug Administration and American Association of Blood Banks approved the type and screen approach in 1980s, long after antibody screen (AS) was introduced in 1950s. The present study omits conventional anti-human globulin (AHG) crossmatch and replaces it with immediate-spin (IS) crossmatch as part of pretransfusion testing in AS-negative patients to study the safety and effectiveness of IS crossmatch in recipients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

This prospective longitudinal study was conducted on over 5000 red cell units transfused to AS-negative patients admitted to the hospital. Pretransfusion testing comprised blood grouping and AS followed by IS crossmatch, at the time of issue of red cell unit. The patients were transfused IS compatible red cell units. AHG crossmatch was performed posttransfusion for all red cell units. Any incompatible AHG crossmatch was followed up as suspected transfusion reaction.

RESULTS:

A total of 5023 red cell units were transfused to 2402 patients with negative AS. 99.7% IS compatible red cell units were also compatible on posttransfusion AHG crossmatch. Anti-P1 alloantibody was identified in one patient who was transfused two IS crossmatch compatible units but later both units were incompatible on AHG crossmatch. There was no clinical or serological sign of hemolysis in the patient.

CONCLUSION:

In AS-negative patients, IS crossmatch is as safe as conventional AHG crossmatch and can, therefore, replace conventional AHG crossmatch protocol.

Are Preoperative Serologic Type and Screen Tests Necessary for Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty Patients in Specialty Surgical Hospitals?

BACKGROUND

Blood loss during total joint arthroplasty (TJA) has been a major concern requiring routine preoperative patient type and screen (T&S); however, with the implementation of blood conserving therapy, a marked decrease for perioperative transfusions has been observed. Many TJAs are now being performed in T&S mandated specialty surgical hospitals (SSHs) that lack on-site blood banks; therefore, the purpose of our study was to determine whether T&S (1) is necessary in SSH for TJA patients and (2) identifies patient risk factors associated with perioperative blood transfusion in SSH.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted on 1034 consecutive primary TJAs performed between 2013 and 2014 at a 12-bed SSH who all received T&S. Patients were matched (1:1) to 964 inpatient TJA patients performed at a university hospital without routine T&S. Data on surgery type, patient demographics, hemoglobin and hematocrit results, and transfusion rates were collected. Multivariate logistic regression identified perioperative transfusion risk factors.

RESULTS

Overall transfusion rates for the matched SSH (1.8% [17/964]) and university hospital populations (2.9% [28/964]) were similar (P = .13), with no emergent transfusions. SSH transfusion rates for simultaneous bilateral THA, simultaneous bilateral TKA, unilateral THA, and unilateral TKA were 21.1% (4/19), 3.1% (4/128), 2.7% (12/439), and 0.0% (0/448), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression identified unilateral THA (P ≤ .001), simultaneous bilateral TJA (P = .001), age (P = .05), and abnormal preoperative hemoglobin (P = .02) as significant transfusion risk factors at SSH.

CONCLUSION

Due to low transfusion rates and lack of emergency transfusions, we recommend routinely ordering T&S for bilateral THA but not for unilateral TJA patients, at SSHs.

Type and screen policy in the blood bank: Is AHG cross-match still required? A study at a multispecialty corporate hospital in India

Background:

Antibodies against only about 25–28 blood group antigens are known to cause hemolytic reactions (HTRs), and red cell antibody screening should detect such clinically significant antibodies. An extension of the antibody screening test is the ‘type and screen’ done to detect clinically significant antibodies, omiting the anti-human globulin (AHG) cross-match.

Aim:

The aim of this study was to find out if the type and screen procedure is a safe method for pre-transfusion testing when compared to the AHG cross-match currently in use in India.

Materials and Methods:

We evaluated data from 45373 patients for whom a total of 61668 units of packed red blood cells (PRBC) were cross-matched in the AHG phase using DiaMed^® ID cards. An antibody screen was carried out in all the patients using the DiaMed^® ID-DiaCell I+II+III. The AHG cross-match was also carried out for all recipients, irrespective of the result of the antibody screen. The results were compared to see if there were any cases where the antibody screening was negative but the AHG cross-match showed incompatibility.

Results:

Not a single case was found where the antibody screen was negative and AHG cross-match showed incompatibility. In 68 cases the antibody screening was positive. Out of the 68 cases, AHG cross-match was incompatible with at least one unit of PRBC in 41 cases.

Conclusion:

The screening cell panel adequately detected the clinically significant antibodies in the Indian population in our study. The type and screen policy can be safe, efficient, cost-effective, and beneficial to the transfusion service in India.

Safety of type and screen method compared to conventional antiglobulin crossmatch procedures for compatibility testing in Indian setting

BACKGROUND

Over the past 30 years, pretransfusion tests have undergone considerable modification. In 1984, AABB recommended that the full cross match could be replaced by an abbreviated cross match in patients with negative antibody screen. However, before implementation of such a policy, issue regarding safety of T & S needs to be evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of pretransfusion testing (PTT) is to ensure that enough red blood cells (RBCs) in the selected red cell components will survive when transfused.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

We have, therefore in this study; evaluated safety of T & S procedure for PTT in comparison with conventional test tube cross match. The T & S procedure gave a safety of 91.6%. Also, the usefulness of the T & S was shown through the detection of unexpected antibodies in 0.75% (15 out of 2026) of cases.