BACKGROUND Blood bank inventories must balance adequate supply with minimal outdate rates. The day‐to‐day practice of ordering red blood cell (RBC) inventory usually involves manually comparing current inventory levels with predetermined thresholds calculated from historical usage and ordering the difference. To date, there have been no published methods for ordering RBC inventory based on laboratory characteristics of admitted patients. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS We designed and implemented a blood ordering algorithm to provide a more accurate measure of predicted RBC utilization in our institution. Cerner Command Language (Cerner Millennium) was used to extract and combine historical RBC unit usage, current inventory levels, and system‐wide hematology values and blood groups. This report contains a suggested order based on current inventory, historical inventory data, ABO group, and the current “anemia index” for the institution. RESULTS The mean daily total RBC inventory was significantly reduced after implementation (401.7 units vs. 309.0 units, p < 0.05). There was a significant reduction in monthly RBC outdates in this period (19.1 vs. 8.1, p < 0.05). The age of RBCs at time of transfusion was reduced as well. CONCLUSION We developed a novel algorithm that automatically generates a suggested RBC inventory order using real‐time hospital‐wide survey of patient ABO typing, hematology values, and historical data. After implementation of the algorithm we demonstrated a significant reduction in daily inventory levels and RBC outdate rates.

Background: Recurrent shoulder instability is a prevalent condition, with glenoid bone loss as a common cause. Arthroscopic repair using distal tibial allografts provides long-lasting treatment by restoring glenoid surface area and presumably avoids risks of sensitization against donor human leukocyte antigen (HLA). Two case studies have challenged this assumption, suggesting that small bone allografts are able to induce host adaptive immune responses to donor HLA. The incidence of small bone allograft HLA sensitization and its effects on resorption and patient outcomes are unclear. Purpose/Hypothesis: The purpose was to assess the rate of sensitization against donor HLA after distal tibial allograft procedures for shoulder instability due to glenoid bone loss and to find whether HLA sensitization negatively affects patient-reported and radiographic outcomes. We hypothesized that sensitized patients would have worse radiographic and self-reported outcomes compared with nonsensitized patients. Study Design: Cohort study; Level of evidence, 3. Methods: A total of 71 patients with a mean age of 28.85 years (range, 13.58-61.31 years) were enrolled, with 58 patients submitting sufficient pre- and postoperative blood samples for HLA antibody testing. In patients who developed HLA antibodies postoperatively, donor HLA typing was used to confirm donor-specific sensitization. Pre- and postoperative computerized tomography scans (0.9 ± 0.8 years follow-up) were used to grade resorption based on the modified Zhu resorption grade classification (ie, grade 0 = no resorption; grade 1 = less than 25% resorption; grade 2 = between 25% and 50% resorption; and grade 3 = larger than 50% resorption). The Western Ontario Shoulder Instability Index outcome scores were obtained preoperatively and at regular postoperative appointments. Resorption and outcome data were compared between sensitized and nonsensitized patients using the Fisher exact test, independent 2-tailed Student t tests, and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test to determine the effect of HLA sensitization on radiographic and patient-reported outcomes. Results: A total of 7 (12.1%) patients with sufficient HLA samples were sensitized against donor HLA postoperatively. Sensitized patients did not have significantly higher rates of resorption (21.9% vs 14.3%, 21.9% vs 28.6%, 43.8% vs 28.6%, and 12.5% vs 28.6% for respective resorption grades 0-3; P = .67; α = .05). Self-reported outcomes were not statistically significant between sensitized and nonsensitized patients (24.9 ± 27.61 vs 40.16 ± 18.99; P = .37; α = .05) and did not differ significantly based on resorption grade (47.4 ± 0.0 vs 55.2 ± 18.8, 30.4 ± 15.8 vs 39.9 ± 20.9, 41.2 ± 0.0 vs 39.1 ± 13.1, and -24.9 ± 0 vs 24.4 ± 19.6 for resorption grades 0-3; P > .05; α = .05). Conclusion: Sensitization against donor HLA after small bone graft allografting was not previously considered but has been brought to light as a possibility. Aside from potential complications for future organ transplants, HLA sensitization does not introduce a risk for adverse outcomes or higher grades of resorption compared with nonsensitized patients after small bone allografting for shoulder instability.