Healthcare provider's perceptions of bleeding in patients with acute leukaemia undergoing induction chemotherapy: A qualitative study

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundBleeding is a primary outcome for many transfusion‐related trials in acute leukaemia (AL) patients, typically graded using the World Health Organisation (WHO) bleeding scale (clinically significant bleed (CSB) is ≥grade 2). This composite outcome fails to differentiate minor bleeds that may not be significant, poorly represents the total burden of bleeding and lacks input from healthcare providers (HCPs) and patients. As part of a multi‐step project to create a better bleeding tool for trials, our objective was to identify HCPs' perspectives on the components of CSB in AL patients.Study Design and MethodsUsing qualitative description, we interviewed 19 physicians and nurses who care for AL patients undergoing induction chemotherapy. Participants were recruited from professional organisations, networks and social media. An inductive approach to conventional content analysis was used.ResultsHCPs identified features of CSB as the anatomical site of bleeding, amount of bleeding, need for intervention and changes in vital signs. Using these characteristics, bleeding events were categorised into three groups: clinically significant, could evolve into a CSB and not clinically significant. HCPs considered the patient's condition, bleeding history and clinical intuitions when deciding whether a bleed could escalate into serious bleeding.DiscussionUsing data from HCPs, we categorised bleeds as clinically significant, could evolve into a CSB, and not significant. A study of patients' perspectives on the importance of different kinds of bleeding is the next step to creating a bleeding definition that is informed by evidence, clinicians and patients.