ABSTRACT
Despite the increasing availability of evidence in transfusion medicine literature, this evidence does not automatically find its way into practice. This is also applicable to patient blood management (PBM). It may concern the lack of implementation of effective new techniques or treatments, or it may apply to the (over)use of techniques and treatments (e.g. inappropriate transfusions) that have proven to be of limited benefit for patients (low-value care) and could be abandoned (de-implementation). In PBM literature, the implementation of restrictive transfusion thresholds and the de-implementation of inappropriate transfusions are described. However, most implementation strategies were not preceded by the identification of relevant barriers, and the used strategies were not often supported by literature on behavioural changes. In this article, we describe implementation vs de-implementation, highlight the current situation of (de)implementation in PBM and describe a systematic approach for (de)implementation illustrated by an example of a PBM de-implementation study regarding '(cost-) effective patient blood management in total hip and knee arthroplasty'. The systematic approach used for (de)implementation is based on the implementation model of Grol, which consists of the following five steps: the detection of improvement goals, a problem analysis, the selection of (de)implementation strategies, the execution of the (de)implementation strategy and an evaluation. Based on the description of the current situation and the experiences in our de-implementation study, we can conclude that de-implementation may be more difficult than expected as other factors may play a role in effective de-implementation compared to implementation.
Subject(s)
Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip , Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee , Blood Transfusion/standards , Delivery of Health Care/standards , Delivery of Health Care/methods , HumansABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To determine the value of erythropoietin in reducing allogeneic transfusions, it is important to assess the effects, safety and costs for individual indications. Previous studies neither compared the effects of erythropoietin between total hip and total knee arthroplasty, nor evaluated the safety or costs. We performed a meta-analysis to assess the effects of erythropoietin in total hip and knee arthroplasty separately. Safety and costs were evaluated as secondary outcomes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials evaluating the effect of erythropoietin in total hip and knee arthroplasty until April 2014. Study data were extracted using standardized forms and pooled using a random-effects model. Strength of the evidence was evaluated using Cochrane's Collaboration's tool for risk of bias assessment. RESULTS: Seven studies were included (2439 patients). Erythropoietin significantly reduced exposure to allogeneic transfusion in both hip (RR 0·45; 95%CI 0·33-0·61) and knee (RR 0·38; 95%CI 0·27-0·53) arthroplasty, without differences between indications (P = 0·44). Mean number of transfused red blood cell units was significantly decreased in erythropoietin-treated patients (mean difference -0·57; 95%CI -0·86 to -0·29)(unable to split). No differences in thromboembolic or adverse events were found. Only one study evaluated costs, so that no pooled cost-effectiveness estimates could be given. CONCLUSION: Erythropoietin is effective in both hip and knee arthroplasty and can be considered as safe. However, the decision to use erythropoietin on a routine base should be balanced against its costs, which may be relatively high.