(P-ED-2) A Retrospective Audit of Blood component Requisition Forms Received at a Private Super Specialty hospital in South India

Delivering safe blood and adequate transfusion to patients is critically dependent on sound communication of information to the blood bank, which ultimately helps the blood bank technologist to identify appropriate blood products.  In 2008, the World Health Organisation (WHO) recommended that each institution should use a blood transfusion request form (BRFs) for effective communication of the patient information to the hospital blood bank.
The current study conducted as a part of quality assurance activity to analyse BRFs sent by clinicians in a Private Super Specialty hospital to the transfusion service to ascertain their completeness and also to take necessary steps to improve the compliance of healthcare personnel with regard to sending completely filled BRF.

Study

Design/Methods:

This was a retrospective, observational study conducted in the department of Transfusion Medicine at a Private Super Specialty hospital from January 2023 to June 2023. An audit of all the Blood component requisition forms for assessing completeness of various parameters present in the forms, was performed. The request form was evaluated for the fullness of the data requested therein: patient details (name, UHID Number), Diagnosis, Nature of Request (Routine/Urgent/Emergency), Indication for Transfusion, type of blood components with number of blood components required, lab parameters, previous history of transfusions; Date of requirement, and referring doctor’s name and signature.
 Percentage of each parameter, which remained incomplete on the requisition forms, was analyzed.

Results/Findings:

A total of 2141 consecutive BRFs that were submitted to the Blood Transfusion Services between the study period were compiled and reviewed.

Parameters of BRF remained incomplete were : 

Patient details (name, UHID Number)-0.05%,

Diagnosis-25.41%,

Nature of Request (Routine/Urgent/Emergency)- 2.52%,

Indication for Transfusion- 24.1%, type of blood components with number of blood components required- 0%,

Lab parameters- 5.37%,

Previous history of transfusions- 5.98%;

Date of requirement- 2.57%,
Referring doctor’s name and signature- 9.53%.

Conclusions:

The current study provides evidence that the rate of completion of BRFs at the current study site is not appropriate, particularly for the parameters like Diagnosis and Indication for Transfusion.

Incomplete blood transfusion request forms create difficulties for the blood bank staff in comprehending the requests, which may compromise patient safety and also the efficiency of blood transfusion services.
The Hospital Transfusion Committee can play a key role in solving this problem and thus improving the standards of Patient Blood Management.