Blood ordering practices in obstetric units in the United Kingdom
- 1 November 1993
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Anaesthesia
- Vol. 48 (11) , 998-1001
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2044.1993.tb07483.x
Abstract
A postal questionnaire on blood ordering practices and blood availability was sent to 89 randomly selected maternity units within the United Kingdom. The replies demonstrated a wide variation in crossmatching practices. Of those units that replied, 56% crossmatch for elective and 64% for emergency Caesarean section, 54% for manual removal of placenta, and 29% for fetal distress in labour. The remainder 'group and screen' for these indications. Lack of 24 h cover by a resident haematology technician, and location of blood banks distant to the obstetric unit were associated with significant delays in blood availability. More extensive use of the 'group and screen' technique may reduce unnecessary crossmatching without jeopardizing patient safety, and is advocated for maternity units.Keywords
This publication has 9 references indexed in Scilit:
- Utilization of red blood cell transfusion in an obstetric settingAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1988
- Type and Screen for Cesarean SectionAnesthesiology, 1983
- Type and screen: A safe and effective preoperative blood ordering policy with emphasis on its use in obstetrics and gynecologyAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1982
- Development of a rational blood‐ordering policy for obstetrics and gynaecologyBJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 1982
- The efficacy of type and screen to reduce unnecessary cross matches for obstetric patientsAmerican Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1981
- An Analysis of Surgical Blood Use in United States Hospitals with Application to the Maximum Surgical Blood Order ScheduleTransfusion, 1979
- Reorganization of Blood Ordering PracticesTransfusion, 1978
- The type and screen: a safe alternative and supplement in selected surgical proceduresTransfusion, 1977