Our findings suggest that a chart audit of 50 RBC transfusions with adjudication using robust criteria is the optimal means of evaluating RBC transfusion appropriateness at an institution for benchmarking and quality-improvement initiatives.

Background and Objectives Platelet (PLT) transfusions must be used appropriately, as they are in chronic short supply, costly and risky to patients. The goals of this audit were to: (1) validate preset adjudication criteria through an audit of appropriateness at four large academic hospitals; (2) identify variability in appropriateness across medical services, physician specialties or hospital locations; and (3) inform logistical or educational interventions that may reduce inappropriate use.Materials and Methods A chart review of two hundred patients receiving PLT transfusions was performed. Fifty consecutive transfusion episodes per site were audited in detail. Each transfusion episode was independently adjudicated as appropriate or inappropriate by two transfusion specialists based on predetermined criteria. ResultsThe adjudication criteria performed well with simple agreement of 95% (kappa statistic 0Á83) between reviewers. Overall, 78% (95% CI: 72-84%) of PLT transfusions were adjudicated as appropriate, with results varying significantly by hospital site (range 62-94%). Prophylactic transfusions for non-bleeding patients had the highest proportion of appropriateness (85%, n = 80), and therapeutic transfusions for bleeding patients had the lowest (73%, n = 99). The lowest levels of appropriate platelet transfusions were observed in the operating rooms (60%) and when ordered by the general surgery service (55%).Conclusions One in five platelet transfusions may be unnecessary, suggesting that interventions to improve PLT transfusion practice are warranted. Background and objectives

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. AbstractBackground: Bleeding assessment is part of the diagnostic workup of von Willebrand disease (VWD). Bleeding assessment tools (BATs) have standardized obtaining this information but have been criticized because they are time consuming.Objective: To use our legacy data to determine which questions from BATs are the strongest predictors of a VWD diagnosis.Patients/Methods: Bleeding score data from 3 different BATs were used. Patients aged <12 years were excluded. Questions on BATs relate to different bleeding symptoms, and each symptom is scored by severity. Scores for each symptom were sorted based on whether they indicated clinically significant bleeding, and nonsignificant scores were set as the reference category. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine the symptoms that were the strongest predictors of a laboratory-confirmed VWD diagnosis. Results:A total of 927 participants were included; 144 (16%) were patients with VWD, and 783 (84%) were healthy controls. The top 3 symptoms for which a clinically significant positive response increased the likelihood of VWD were hemarthrosis (odds ratio [OR], 19.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7-100.4), postsurgical bleeding (OR, 15.2; 95% CI, 5.9-38.9), and menorrhagia (OR, 10.3; 95% CI, 4.9-21.9).With each increase in number of bleeding symptom categories with clinically significant scores, subjects had a stepwise increase in odds of a VWD diagnosis. Conclusions:Our results suggest that most of the bleeding symptoms on BATs are significant predictors of VWD, and there is value in assessing multiple bleeding symptoms when eliciting a bleeding history. Certain bleeding symptoms are more useful predictors than others. Future BAT revisions may consider adding a relative weighting to each symptom.