Transitioning from ‘blood’ safety to ‘transfusion’ safety: addressing the single biggest risk of transfusion

Transfusion errors occur at all points in the transfusion chain, often occurring at multiple points in the transfusion process for the same patient. Such events have been reported to national haemovigilance programs in almost all countries, over and over again. An incredible number of safety changes have been implemented to improve blood safety , including but not limited to: nucleic acid testing for HIV/HBV/HCV, bacterial culture for platelet concentrates, use of male‐only plasma, and the introduction of pathogen reduction strategies. By contrast, very little momentum has developed behind transfusion safety , in hope of improving the safe delivery of blood to patients. This article will review the interventions that have been studied by transfusion medicine services in attempt to improve transfusion safety at every link in the transfusion chain. The most important and indispensable safety step is the introduction of an error tracking system. Such a system should capture all deviations from standard operating procedures, including near‐misses that are captured before the blood product is issued. Near‐misses are 300‐fold more common and represent latent safety concerns requiring urgent attention. The system should be anonymous to ensure that there is no barrier to reporting and no‐fault to recognize that the vast majority of errors are due to latent system errors. The errors should be coded by type and location to allow for the ability to query the error database for the purposes of benchmarking and tracking and trending after system changes. Such a system will allow hospital transfusion services to focus their initiatives at the steps in the transfusion chain most in need of repair at their institution. The system changes that have been studied include: confirmatory group testing, computerized physician order entry, prospective screening of transfusion orders before/after issue, controlled patient registration, regional blood bank information systems, positive patient identification at time of sample collection and the start of transfusion (using barcode or RFID technology), controlled release refrigeration devices, patient involvement in the transfusion process, and healthcare professional education. For each area, the specific technologies or examples will be detailed, the reports from the literature will be reviewed, and the obstacles to implementation will be discussed. Now that blood safety has been assured, we need to re‐focus our attentions on the single biggest threat to patients: errors in the transfusion chain at the hospital level. We need to ensure that patients get blood only when required, that they get the correct product of the correct blood group, at the right dose, at the appropriate infusion rate, to the correct patient, at the right time. We need to take a rigorous scientific approach to solving transfusion safety to ensure that each process change is properly tested and validated to verify that each newly introduced process is safe and effective.