山东省血站献血服务、成分制备及血液供应过程质量监测指标体系的应用OACSTPCD
Quality monitoring indicator system in blood banks of Shandong:applied in blood donation services,component preparation and blood supply process
目的 建立有效的献血服务、成分制备及血液供应过程质量指标监测体系,客观地评价血液采集、制备和供应过程的质量控制水平,促进血站采供血过程的持续优化和标准化管理.方法 建立覆盖采供血全过程的献血服务、成分制备、血液检测、血液供应和质量控制的质量监测指标体系,向山东省 17 家血站发放《采供血过程质量监测指标统计表》,明确指标定义和计算公式,收集各血站 2022 年 1-12 月质量监测指标数据,利用SPSS25.0 软件对其中的献血服务(10 个)、成分制备(7 个)和血液供应(4 个)3 个方面 21 个质量监测指标数据进行统计学分析,并比较了不同规模血站质量监测指标的差异.结果 17 家血站献血服务过程质量监测指标平均值分别为:定期献血者比例44.66%(2 233/5 000)、献血不良反应发生率0.22%(11/50)、非标量全血采集率0.46%(23/5 000)、HBsAg初筛漏检率 0.052%(13/25 000)、血液采集一针率 99.42%(4 971/5 000)、双份单采血小板采集率 86.49%(173/200)、400 mL全血采集率 66.50%(133/200)、献血者满意度 99.25%(397/400)、带旁路留样系统全血采集袋使用率82.68%(2 067/2 500)、血液采集职业暴露发生数 1 例;定期献血者比例和 400 mL全血采集率具有较强的正相关(P<0.05);大型血站双份单采血小板采集率、献血不良反应发生率和非标量全血采集率显著低于中、小型血站(P<0.05).17 家血站成分制备过程质量监测指标平均值分别为:血液成分制备血袋破损率 0.03%(3/10 000)、乳糜血报废率 3.05%(61/2 000)、溶血报废率 0.13%(13/10 000)、贴签错误发生数 0.06 件、血液导管渗漏数 8 袋、血液穿刺/接驳渗漏数 2.76 袋、耗材不合格数 0.59 件;大型血站溶血报废率显著低于中型和小型血站(P<0.05)、大型和中型血站乳糜血报废率显著低于小型血站(P<0.05).17 家血站血液供应过程质量监测指标平均值分别为:血液制剂过期报废率 0.023%(23/100 000)、血液制剂储存发放破损率0.009%(9/100 000)、退血报废率0.106%(53/50 000)、用血医院服务满意度 99.16%(2 479/2 500).不同血站之间血液制剂储存发放破损率与血液成分制备血袋破损率差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05).在大、中和小型血站之间定期献血者比例、献血不良反应发生率、非标量全血采集率、400 mL全血采集率、双份单采血小板采集率,血液成分制备血袋破损率、乳糜血报废率、溶血报废率、血液制剂过期报废率、血液制剂储存发放破损率和退血报废率的差异具有统计学意义(P均<0.05).结论 山东省血站献血服务、成分制备及血液供应过程质量监测指标体系的建立具有较好的适用性、可行性和有效性,能够客观评价血站采供血过程质量管理水平,推进全省血液管理同质化和标准化发展,为今后开展血站综合评价奠定基础.
Objective To establish an effective quality indicator monitoring system,scientifically and objectively evalu-ate the quality management level of blood banks,and achieve continuous improvement of quality management in blood bank.Methods A quality monitoring indicator system that covers the whole process of blood collection and supply was estab-lished,the questionnaire of Quality Monitoring Indicators for Blood Collection and Supply Process with clear definition of in-dicators and calculation formulas was distributed to 17 blood banks in Shandong.Statistical analysis of 21 quality monitoring indicators in terms of blood donation service(10 indicators),blood component preparation(7 indicators),and blood sup-ply(4 indicators)from each blood bank from January to December 2022 were conducted using SPSS25.0 software The differences in quality monitoring indicators of blood banks of different scales were analyzed.Results The average values of quality monitoring indicators for blood donation service processof17 blood bankswere asfollows:44.66%(2 233/5 000)of regular donors proportion,0.22%(11/50)of adverse reactions incidence,0.46%(23/5 000)of non-standard whole blood collection rate,0.052%(13/25 000)of missed HBsAg screening rate,99.42%(4 971/5 000)of first,puncture success-ful rate,86.49%(173/200)of double platelet collection rate,66.50%(133/200)of 400 mL whole blood collection rate,99.25%(397/400)of donor satisfaction rate,82.68%(2 067/2 500)of use rate of whole blood collection bags with by-pass system with sample tube,and 1 case of occupational exposure in blood collection.There was a strong positive correlation between the proportion of regular blood donors and the collection rate of 400 mL whole blood(P<0.05).The platelet collec-tion rate,incidence of adverse reactions to blood donation,and non-standard whole blood collection rate in large blood banks were significantly lower than those in medium and small blood banks(P<0.05).The average quality monitoring indi-cators for blood component preparation process of 17 blood banks were as follows:the leakage rate of blood component prepa-ration bags was 0.03%(3/10 000),the discarding rate of lipemic blood was3.05%(61/2 000),the discarding rate of he-molysis blood was 0.13%(13/10 000).0.06 case had labeling errors,8 bags had blood catheter leaks,2.76 bags had blood puncture/connection leaks,and 0.59 cases had non-conforming consumables.The discarding rate of hemolysis blood of large blood banks was significantly lower than that of medium and small blood banks(P<0.05),and the discarding rate of lipemic blood of large and medium blood banks was significantly lower than that of small blood banks(P<0.05).The aver-age values of quality monitoring indicators for blood supply process of 17 blood banks were as follows:the discarding rate of expired blood was 0.023%(23/100 000),the leakage rate during storage and distribution was of 0.009%(9/100 000),the discarding rate of returned blood was 0.106%(53/50 000),the service satisfaction of hospitals was 99.16%(2 479/2 500).The leakage rate of blood components during storage and distribution was statistically different with that of blood com-ponent preparation bags between different blood banks(P<0.05).There were statistically significant differences in the pro-portion of regular blood donors,incidence of adverse reactions,non-standard whole blood collection rate,400 mL whole blood collection rate,double platelet collection rate,the blood bag leakage rate during preparation process,the blood com-ponents leakage rate during storage and distribution as well as the discarding rate of lipemic blood,hemolysis blood,expired blood and returned blood among large,medium and small blood banks(all P<0.05).Conclusion The establishment of a quality monitoring indicator system for blood donation services,blood component preparation and blood supply processes in Shandong has good applicability,feasibility and effectiveness.It can objectively evaluate the quality management level,fa-cilitate the continuous improvement of the quality management system,promote the homogenization of blood management in the province and lay the foundation for future comprehensive evaluation of blood banks.
吴玉清;朱琳;范晓娟;孙庶丽;张韦;韩金玉;黄海燕;刘广彩;陈平;安宪武;张惠;周洪;任俊霞;李雪晶;杨晨曦;周博;叶辉;谯铭铭;申华;贡觉顿珠;庄云龙;张志杰;戎志全;李雪梅;宋哲;赵淑红;杨忠思;刘群
青岛市中心血站,山东 青岛 266071东营市中心血站日照市中心血站威海市中心血站滨州市中心血站菏泽市中心血站济宁市中心血站临沂市中心血站聊城市中心血站枣庄市中心血站德州市中心血站济南市血液供保中心泰安市中心血站淄博市中心血站山东省血液中心潍坊市中心血站烟台市中心血站
环境科学
血站献血服务成分制备血液供应质量监测指标体系比对
blood bankblood donation serviceblood component preparationblood supplyquality monitoring indi-cator systemcomparison
《中国输血杂志》 2024 (003)
275-282 / 8
山东省级医疗质量管理工作项目(2018-2022)
评论