Cryoprecipitate Utilization Patterns Observed With a Required Prospective Approval Process vs Electronic Dosing Guidance

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the impact of electronic medical record (EMR)-guided pooled cryoprecipitate dosing vs our previous practice of requiring transfusion medicine (TM) resident approval for every cryoprecipitate transfusion. METHODS: At our hospital, cryoprecipitate pooled from five donors is dosed for adult patients, while single-donor cryoprecipitate is dosed for pediatric patients (defined as patients <50 kg in weight). EMR-based dosing guidance replaced a previously required TM consultation when cryoprecipitate pools were ordered, but a consultation remained required for single-unit orders. Usage was defined as thawed cryoprecipitate; wastage was defined as cryoprecipitate that expired prior to transfusion. RESULTS: In the 6 months prior to intervention, 178 ± 13 doses of pooled cryoprecipitate were used per month vs 187 ± 15 doses after the intervention (P = .68). Wastage of pooled cryoprecipitate increased from 7.7% ± 1.5% to 12.7% ± 1.4% (P = .038). There was no change in wastage of pediatric cryoprecipitate doses during the study period. These trends remained unchanged for a full year postimplementation. CONCLUSIONS: Electronic dosing guidance resulted in similar cryoprecipitate usage as TM auditing. Increased wastage may result from reduced TM oversight. Product wastage should be balanced against the possibility that real-time audits could delay a lifesaving therapy.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)362-368
Number of pages7
JournalAmerican journal of clinical pathology
Volume154
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 5 2020

Keywords

  • Cryoprecipitate
  • Electronic medical records
  • Patient blood management

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Cryoprecipitate Utilization Patterns Observed With a Required Prospective Approval Process vs Electronic Dosing Guidance'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this