Application of Comprehensive Quality Management Intervention in the Inconsistent Results of Blood Group Identification
-
摘要:
目的 回顾性分析开展“全程输血质量管理”前后血液标本2次血型鉴定结果不一致情况,调查分析原因,提出改进措施,保障临床用血安全。 方法 对比分析昆明医科大学第二附属医院开展“全程输血质量管理”前3 a(2015年1月至2017年12月)及后3 a(2018年1月至2020年12月)血液标本2次血型鉴定结果。 结果 2015年至2020年一共进行120 023例2次血型鉴定,共46例血液标本2次血型鉴定结果不一致,发生率0.038%,其中前3 a 34例,发生率为0.061%,后3 a 12例,发生率为0.019%(P < 0.05)。调查分析相关因素,在实施“全程输血质量管理”前3 a,患者身份识别错误是主要原因,主要责任人为护士。而在实施“全程输血质量管理”后3 a患者借用他人医保卡信息是主要原因,主要责任人为患者。 结论 通过开展“全程输血质量管理”,严格执行操作规程,实施同一患者血型和交叉配血2份血液标本检测结果比对的安全措施可有效降低输血风险。 Abstract:Objective Through retrospective analysis of the inconsistency of the two blood type identification results of blood samples before and after the implementation of the “comprehensive blood transfusion quality management” in our hospital, the reasons were investigated and analyzed, and improvement measures were proposed to ensure the safety of clinical blood use. Methods We performed a comparative analysis of the 2 blood type identification results of blood samples which were tested in the first three years (January 2015 to December 2017) and the later three years (January 2018 to December 2020) in our hospital after implementation of “Comprehensive Blood Transfusion Quality Management” Results From 2015 to 2020, a total of 12,023 cases of blood type identification were performed twice, and a total of 46 blood samples were identified with inconsistent results. The incidence rate was 0.038%, including 34 cases (0.061%) in the first three years and 12 cases (0.019%) in the later three years (P < 0.05). The related factors were investigated and analyzed. In the first three years after the implementation of “Comprehensive Blood Transfusion Quality Management”, the main reason was the wrong identification of patients, and the main responsibility was the nurse. In the later three years after the implementation of “Comprehensive Blood Transfusion Quality Management”, the main reason was that patients borrow other people’ s information, and the main responsibility was the patient. Conclusion The risk of blood transfusion can be effectively reduced by carrying out “Comprehensive Blood Transfusion Quality Management”, strictly implementing the operating procedures, and comparing the test results of two blood samples of the same patient’ s blood type and cross matching. -
表 1 2次血型鉴定结果不一致的总数比较[n(%)]
Table 1. Comparison of the total number of inconsistent blood group identification results [n(%)]
组别 2次结果一致 2次结果不一致 χ2 P 对照组 55493(46.3) 34(73.9) 观察组 64484(53.7) 12(26.1) 14.151 < 0.001* *P < 0.05。 表 2 导致2次血型鉴定结果不一致的失误操作类型分布[n(%)]
Table 2. Distribution of misoperation types that led to the inconsistent results of the 2 blood group identifications [n(%)]
失误操作 对照组 观察组 患者身份识别错误 25(73.5) 2(16.7) 条码粘贴错误 29(5.9) 1(8.3) 手工检测结果录入错误 5(14.7) 0 患者借用他人医保卡信息 1(2.9) 9(75.0) 未知 1(2.9) 0 表 3 导致2次血型鉴定结果不一致的责任人分布[n(%)]
Table 3. Distribution of persons responsible for the inconsistent results of the 2 blood group identifications [n(%)]
责任人 对照组 观察组 护士 20(58.8) 3(25.0) 医学实习生 7(20.6) 0 检验技师 5(14.7) 0 卫生工勤人员 1(2.9) 0 患者 1(2.9) 9(75.0) 表 4 2次血型鉴定结果不一致的发现环节分布[n(%)]
Table 4. Distribution of discovery links with the inconsistent results of 2 blood group identifications [n(%)]
发现环节 对照组 观察组 交叉配血复查血型 25(73.5) 2(16.7) 与原始记录不符 6(17.6) 10(83.3) 与父母血型遗传规律不符 3(8.8) 0 -
[1] 田兆嵩, 刘赴平. 输血前检验应重视的几个问题[J]. 中华检验医学杂志,2001,24(3):10-11. [2] Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, et al. Causes, consequences, detection, and prevention of identification errors in laboratory diagnostics[J]. Clin Chem Lab Med,2009,47(2):143-153. [3] Ibojie J, Urbaniak S. Comparing near misses with actual mistransfusion events: a more accurate reflection of transfusion errors[J]. Br J Haematol,2000,108(2):458-460. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2141.2000.01876.x [4] 郭永建. 筑牢血液标本采集错误的防控机制——血型2次检测结果比对要求之习得与实施策略[J]. 中国输血杂志,2013,26(6):595-600. [5] 尹湧华,孔玉洁,王美玉,等. 《血站技术操作规程(2015版)》研读[J]. 中国输血杂志,2016,29(11):1303-1305. [6] Najafpour Z, Hasoumi M, Behzadi F, et al. Preventing blood transfusion failures: FMEA, an effective assessment method[J]. BMC Health Services Research.,2017,17(1):453. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2380-3 [7] 宫济武, 李志强. 输血相容性试验标准检测流程[J]. 中国输血杂志,2012,25(9):815-817. [8] 李喜莹, 甘佳, 王鹏. 输血相容性检测室内质量控制的失控判定与处理专家共识[J]. 中国输血杂志,2020,33(1):1-3. [9] 张业玲,卜晓佳,张景莲,等. 智慧型闭环移动护理管理系统在临床用血质量管理中的应用[J]. 中国输血杂志,2021,34(4):420-423. [10] 卢思超,廖奇峰,汪小燕,等. 失效模式与效应分析在输血安全管理中的应用[J]. 现代医院,2021,21(3):365-367,370. [11] 汪蓉,杨宝义,李龙倜,等. 失效模式与效应分析在ICU 输血安全管理中的应用效果[J]. 中国医药导报,2019,16(26):186-188. [12] 陈香凤,朱倩兰,张明霞,等. 医疗失效模式与效应分析在围手术期住院患者检查流程中的应用[J]. 护理管理杂志,2019,19(5):365-369. [13] 胡正军,陈晨,戴潇青,等. 加强检验与临床沟通 促进检验结果对患者负责[J]. 中医药管理杂志,2017,25(15):166-168. [14] 王远杰,刘家瑞,李红梅,等. 二次血型制配合输血管理系统阻止不相容血液发放的研究[J]. 国际输血及血液学杂志,2015,38(6):481-485. [15] 朱静,詹廷西,王静,等. 162 967例二次血型结果分析及其在输血安全中的意义探讨[J]. 中外医学研究,2021,19(2):169-171.