Comparison of computerized provider order entry specific transfusion indications versus the use of “Other”

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundComputerized physician order entry (CPOE) systems are one way to reinforce evidence‐based transfusion indications for blood products. The new CPOE system that was implemented at our institution allowed healthcare providers to select “Other” as an indication and provide reasons for transfusion outside of accepted guidelines.Study Design and MethodsTransfusion order records for packed red blood cells (RBCs), platelets, and fresh frozen plasma (FFP) from high product‐ordering areas of Long Island Jewish Medical Center and Cohen's Children's Medical Center from April 2021, when the new CPOE system was implemented, to November 2021 were reviewed. The percentage of “Other” orders was determined and the reason for each “Other” order was reviewed to identify possible areas for education or valid indications not included in the institutionally recognized indications.Results9.7% of RBC orders, 1.9% of platelet orders, and 18.2% of FFP orders were placed with “Other” as the indication for transfusion (χ22 = 88.5; p < .001). Reasons for “Other” orders were varied, but notable reasons included indications already institutionally accepted such as, bleeding (15.7% of pediatric “Other” RBC orders), hold for OR (14.3% of pediatric and 15.8% of adult “Other” RBC orders), and novel reasons such as FFP for ACE‐inhibitor associated angioedema (84.6% of adult “Other” FFP orders).DiscussionThe findings from our study provide examples of potential difficulties hospitals may encounter when they implement a new computerized physician order entry system. Provider education may play an important role to reduce the number of “Other” orders placed for already recognized indications.