Safe handovers: Safe patients-why good quality structured handovers in the transfusion laboratory are important.

BACKGROUND: Effective transfer of information relating to patient care is vital in healthcare. In the UK formal handover is an established and well reported process in the clinical setting but less so in transfusion laboratories. Blood transfusions occur within many hospital specialities and across clinical and laboratory staff shifts, making robust handover critical for safe practice. Failure to adequately transfer information relating to pending or ongoing provision of blood components during shift handover in the laboratory can have an adverse impact on patient care. AIMS: To identify transfusion errors where laboratory handover was considered a contributory factor. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Serious adverse events and reactions reported to the UK haemovigilance scheme, Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT), involving handover in the transfusion laboratory were reviewed for a 6-year period. RESULTS: Laboratory incidents involving handover were mainly associated with incorrect blood component transfused-specific requirements not met (IBCT-SRNM) and delays in provision of blood components transfusion, with 16.6% of these cases involving major haemorrhage situations. Handover was found to be insufficient in most cases, no handover was completed in 29.5% of cases, inadequate written handover accounted for 14.8% cases, and inadequate verbal for 5.7% of cases. DISCUSSION: Poor handover can lead to laboratory errors, particularly delays in provision of blood components. Embedding effective handover processes in the laboratory and including handover time within the shift working pattern, may help reduce errors and ensure continuity of care. CONCLUSION: Handover should be considered a task that is built into laboratory routine practices, ensuring effective transfer of information and appropriate follow up actions are taken. SHOT have created a handover template which can be adopted in laboratories to formalise this process.

Missed irradiation of cellular blood components for vulnerable patients: Insights from 10 years of SHOT data.

BACKGROUND: Irradiation of cellular blood components is recommended for patients at risk of transfusion-associated graft-vs-host disease (TA-GvHD). Prestorage leucodepletion (LD) of blood components is standard in the UK since 1999. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Analysis of 10 years' reports from UK national hemovigilance scheme, Serious Hazards of Transfusion (2010-2019), where patients failed to receive irradiated components when indicated according to British Society for Haematology guidelines (2011). RESULTS: There were 956 incidents of failure to receive irradiated components all due to errors. One hundred and seventy two incidents were excluded from analysis, 125 of 172 (72.7%) because of missing essential information. No cases of TA-GvHD were reported in this cohort. The 784 patients received 2809 components (number unknown for 67 incidents). Most failures occurred in patients treated with purine analogues (365) or alemtuzumab (69), or with a history of Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) (192). Together these make up 626 of 784 (79.9%). Poor communication is an important cause of errors. CONCLUSION: Leucodepletion appears to reduce the risk for TA-GvHD. None of 12 cases of TA-GvHD reported to SHOT prior to introduction of LD occurred in patients with conditions recommended for irradiated components by current guidelines. Irradiation indefinitely for all stages of HL is not based on good evidence and is a difficult guideline to follow. Further research on long-term immune function in HL is required. Variation between different national guidelines reflects the very limited evidence.

The haemoglobinopathy survey: The reality of transfusion practice in sickle cell disease and thalassaemia in England.

OBJECTIVES: To establish, in an unselected population of London haemoglobinopathy patients, transfusion requirements, blood antigens/alloantibodies, transfusion modalities, burden of transfusion reactions and donor exposure. BACKGROUND: Haemoglobinopathy patients are among the most highly transfused patient populations, and the overall population and number of patients on long-term transfusion programmes are increasing. To provide a safe and efficacious transfusion service for patients, it is important to understand current practice, morbidity associated with transfusion, efficacy of different transfusion modalities and geno-/phenotype requirements. METHODS: Data on 4451 transfusion episodes in 760 patients from 12 London hospitals were collected retrospectively over a 6-month period in 2011. RESULTS: Alloimmunisation prevalence was 17% for sickle cell disease (SCD) and 22% for thalassaemia, most commonly anti-Rh/Kell/Kpa /Cw . Rh phenotypes differed between SCD (Ro r 59.8%/R1 r 15.9%/R2 r 15.6%) and thalassaemia (R1 R1 29.6%/R1 r 28.4%/R1 R2 15.4%). Recording of pheno-/genotypes fell below recommendations. A 2-weekly manual exchange and 3-weekly automated exchange came closest to achieving presumptive targets. In adults with thalassaemia, the mean blood requirement was 36 units per year; for SCD, erythrocytapheresis was carried out every 7 weeks with 66 units; for manual exchange, it was 38 units every 4 weeks; and for simple transfusion, it was 30 units p.a. every 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: Transfusion modality choice was influenced by the resources available-children mostly received simple transfusions, and adults received erythrocytapheresis; the relationships between frequency of exchanges/transfusion modality/target HbA% were not simple, possibly reflecting the difference in recipient erythropoiesis and consequent transfusion modality selection bias; adherence to existing and current guidelines regarding geno-/phenotyping was limited; and alloimmunisation had a low incidence and high prevalence in both disorders.

Electronic identification systems reduce the number of wrong components transfused.

BACKGROUND: Errors in hospital transfusion may cause wrong (blood) components to be transfused. This study assessed the value of electronic identification systems (EISs) in reducing wrong component transfusions (WCTs). METHODS: UK hospitals reporting to Serious Hazards of Transfusion were invited to complete an electronic survey about transfusion including the use of EISs. Further information was requested for WCTs and near-miss WCTs. RESULTS: A response rate of 93 of 222 (42%) hospitals accounted for 38% of UK blood component issues in 2015 and 2016. Thirty-three of 93 (35%) hospitals employ manual procedures and 16 (17%) use EISs throughout the transfusion process; most of the remainder use EISs for blood collection only. Fifty-seven WCTs were identified in approximately two million blood components. The primary error was at blood draw and sample labeling (3), blood collection (15), and administration (2); the remainder were mostly blood bank errors. No WCTs occurred with blood draw and sample labeling or administration with use of EISs. Three WCTs occurred with EISs for blood collection due to incorrect processes for emergency transfusions of group O blood without any adverse effects. Seventeen WCTs occurred with manual processes; one was an ABO-incompatible red blood cell transfusion resulting in renal impairment. Near-miss WCTs were also more frequent with manual procedures than EISs at blood draw and sample labeling and blood collection. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first multicenter study to demonstrate a lower incidence of WCTs and near-miss WCTs with EISs compared to manual processes, and highlights some limitations of both manual and EIS procedures.