Search

The focus of this study was to determine if there is significant data to prohibit short-term storage of red blood cells (RBCs; i.e., <24 hr) at 1 to 10°C rather than 1 to 6°C, which occurs not uncommonly when RBCs are stored in a cooler for a patient during surgery. This document will describe the evidence in the literature to date regarding the potential impact of having RBCs temporarily in the 1 to 10°C range versus in the 1 to 6°C range, if any, on key measures of the quality of RBC storage: potassium, adenosine triphosphate, 2,3-diphosphoglycerate, posttransfusion survival, and bacterial contamination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The deadliest mass shooting in modern United States history occurred on October 1, 2017, in Las Vegas, killing 58 and overwhelming hospitals with more than 600 injured. The scope of the tragedy offers insight into medical demands, which may help guide preparedness for future mass shooting incidents., Methods: Retrospective, deidentified, health care institution-provided data from all hospitals and blood banks providing care to Las Vegas shooting victims were gathered. Study authors independently reviewed all data and cross-referenced it for verification. Main outcomes and measures include the number of victims requiring hospital and intensive care admission, the amount and types of blood components transfused during the first 24 hours, and the amount of blood donated to local blood banks following the Las Vegas mass shooting., Results: Two hundred twenty patients required hospital admission, 68 of them to critical care. Nearly 500 blood components were transfused during the first 24 hours in a red blood cell-to-plasma-to-platelet ratio of 1:0.54:0.81. Public citizens donated almost 800 units of blood immediately after the shooting; greater than 17% of this donated blood went unused., Conclusions: The amount of blood components transfused per patient admitted was similar in magnitude to other mass casualty events, and available blood supply met patient demand. The public call for blood donors was not necessary to meet immediate demand and led to resource waste. Preparation for future mass shooting incidents should include training the community in hemorrhage control, encouraging routine blood donation, and avoiding public calls for blood donation unless approved by local blood suppliers., Level of Evidence: Therapeutic study, level V.

Context: During the past 25 years, the College of American Pathologists' (CAP) Q-Probes program has been available as a subscription program to teach laboratorians how to improve the quality of clinical laboratory services., Objective: To determine the accomplishments of the CAP Q-Probes program., Design: We reviewed Q-Probes participant information, study data and conclusions, author information, and program accomplishments., Results: During this time 117 Q-Probes clinical pathology studies were conducted by 54 authors and coauthors, 42,899 laboratories enrolled from 24 countries, 98 peer-reviewed publications occurred and were cited more than 1600 times, and the studies were featured 59 times in CAP Today. The most frequent studies (19) focused on turnaround times for results or products at specific locations (emergency department, operating room, inpatients, outpatients), specific diseases (acute myocardial infarction, urinary tract), availability for specific events such as morning rounds or surgery, a specific result (positive blood cultures), and a method on how to use data for improvement (stat test outliers). Percentile ranking of study participants with better performance provided benchmarks for each study with attributes statistically defined that influenced improved performance. Other programs, such as an ongoing quality improvement program (Q-Tracks), a laboratory competency assessment program, a pathologist certification program, and an ongoing physician practice evaluation program (Evalumetrics), have been developed from Q-Probes studies., Conclusions: The CAP's Q-Probes program has made significant contributions to the medical literature and has developed a worldwide reputation for improving the quality of clinical pathology services worldwide.

In a previous article, we reviewed the management of blood component recalls and withdrawals (G. Ramsey. Transfusion Med Rev 2004;18:36-45). Since then, US rates of recall and biological product deviation for blood components have improved significantly, particularly with regard to reduced recalls for donor infectious disease risks or testing. However, analysis of the current data from the US Food and Drug Administration suggests that 1 (0.4%) in 250 blood components is involved in market withdrawals and quarantines, with 1 in 5800 components formally recalled. Most of these units, unfortunately, had already have been transfused. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has issued several recent guidances that address transfusion service actions for dealing with specific infectious disease problems. This present article updates our 2004 recommendations as to when to notify physicians about transfused nonconforming blood components., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Donor centers are issuing a growing number of recalls and market withdrawals to hospital transfusion services about blood components. More than 1 in 2,000 units were recalled in the late 1990s in the United States. The most common reason for these notices from donor centers is postdonation donor information. Most of these units had been transfused, and many present a "risk of a risk" (ie, a problem might have been present that might have affected the recipient). A few regulations and standards address recalls in general terms, but transfusion services generally have wide discretion in the management of specific common recall problems. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now including posttransfusion evaluations in its guidelines for emerging infectious threats to the blood supply. We suggest that hospital transfusion services should have standard operating procedures for managing recalls and that the hospital transfusion committee and the quality management program should provide local input or oversight. Using the FDA's categories of donor center biological product deviations, we provide recommendations to consider for when to notify the recipient's physician, after postdonation information is received about a previously transfused blood component. More study of this important everyday issue in transfusion medicine is highly desirable.