Home‐based blood transfusion therapy: A systematic review

Abstract

Many patients with haematological diseases, cancer or advanced chronic diseases need intermediate or long-term blood product transfusions. 1 These patients are required to regularly attend a hospital or an ambulatory care centre to undergo this procedure. This can be very burdensome, especially for terminal or frail patients that must rely on caregivers for travelling. Home-based blood transfusion therapy can constitute an alternative to conventional hospitalisation for these patients by reducing the disruption which hospital admission entails for patients and caregivers. With respect to the health system, home care can enable resources to be used sustainably, by avoiding costs of care and unnecessary patient transfers to health centres, always in the interests of enhanced patient comfort and care. [2][3][4][5] Mention should also be made of patients' and caregivers' satisfaction with home care, with greater satisfaction being shown by caregivers. 3 Home blood transfusion can be used in different contexts, as a stand-alone process or as part of home care services. The concept of home care emerged in New York (USA) in 1947, with the initial aim of relieving the overcrowding of hospital wards and ensuring more humane treatment of patients. In

Prognostic factors in patients in the terminal phase of haematological malignancies who are receiving home medical care

“…The reason is probably that we performed appropriate RBC transfusion and platelet transfusion even in HMC. Although blood transfusion at home has not been common in Japan, 28,29 haematologists providing HMC are actively working to spread the treatment with blood transfusion at home like in the other countries 30–42 …”

“…Although blood transfusion at home has not been common in Japan, 28,29 haematologists providing HMC are actively working to spread the treatment with blood transfusion at home like in the other countries. [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42] Clinicians' estimates were overweighted in previous scoring systems such as PaP and JPOS-PI (Figure 1A,C). Clinicians' estimates of prognosis are a subjective estimate and can vary from clinician to clinician.…”