Vox sanguinis · 2026
Staff satisfaction with the use of bedside electronic transfusion checks at three hospitals in London.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oyekan Florence, Ahmed Montasir, Booth Catherine, Bowles Louise, Djurdjevic Ollie, Feng Yan, Hancock Kirsty, Makki Suzanne, McAleese Helinor, McCullagh Josephine, Mon Khin, Murphy Michael F, Stanworth Simon J, Proudlove Nathan, Green Laura
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Bedside transfusion errors, especially positive patient identification (PPID), are a risk to patient safety. Bedside electronic transfusion checks (BETC), using barcode-enabled personal digital assistants (PDAs), are recommended to improve safety and efficiency. This study assessed staff satisfaction with BETC versus manual transfusion checks in three large London hospitals. The surveys aimed to compare clinical staff satisfaction with BETC versus the manual system.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted immediately after training and 6 months after routine BETC use. The initial (21 questions) and follow-up (15 questions) surveys assessed usability, accuracy, workflow efficiency and patient care impact. Responses were collected via Microsoft Forms and analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression, adjusting for job role, experience and hospitals.
RESULTS: A total of 2085 staff completed the initial survey (55% response) and 514 the follow-up (13%), predominantly nurses (75%). For group and screen (G&S) labelling, ratings of 'ease of use' and 'accuracy' improved significantly between surveys, while perceived impact on reducing mislabelling remained consistently high (96.2% vs. 94.7%). Compared with manual checks, BETC was rated significantly by clinicians for ease of use (89% → 94%) and accuracy (89% → 95%; both p < 0.001). Improvements were also observed for the time saved by clinical staff (75% → 89%), patient care (77% → 89%), fewer nurses required (79% → 91%) and traceability (80% → 87%), all statistically significant (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: BETC was associated with significantly greater clinical staff satisfaction than manual transfusion checks, providing large-scale evidence for their adoption to enhance transfusion safety, efficiency and staff experience.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was conducted immediately after training and 6 months after routine BETC use. The initial (21 questions) and follow-up (15 questions) surveys assessed usability, accuracy, workflow efficiency and patient care impact. Responses were collected via Microsoft Forms and analysed using descriptive statistics and logistic regression, adjusting for job role, experience and hospitals.
RESULTS: A total of 2085 staff completed the initial survey (55% response) and 514 the follow-up (13%), predominantly nurses (75%). For group and screen (G&S) labelling, ratings of 'ease of use' and 'accuracy' improved significantly between surveys, while perceived impact on reducing mislabelling remained consistently high (96.2% vs. 94.7%). Compared with manual checks, BETC was rated significantly by clinicians for ease of use (89% → 94%) and accuracy (89% → 95%; both p < 0.001). Improvements were also observed for the time saved by clinical staff (75% → 89%), patient care (77% → 89%), fewer nurses required (79% → 91%) and traceability (80% → 87%), all statistically significant (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: BETC was associated with significantly greater clinical staff satisfaction than manual transfusion checks, providing large-scale evidence for their adoption to enhance transfusion safety, efficiency and staff experience.