Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May;19(3):205-215.
doi: 10.2450/2020.0105-20. Epub 2020 Sep 18.

Maturity Assessment model for Patient Blood Management to assist hospitals in improving patients' safety and outcomes. The MAPBM project

Elvira Bisbe  1 , Albert Garcia-Casanovas  2 , Carles Illa  3 , Jordi Varela  4 , Misericordia Basora  5 , Marta Barquero  6 , Maria J Colomina  7 , Lucia González  3 , Axel Hofmann  8   9 ; MAPBM Working Group (listed in Appendix 1)  10
Affiliations

Maturity Assessment model for Patient Blood Management to assist hospitals in improving patients' safety and outcomes. The MAPBM project

Elvira Bisbe et al. Blood Transfus. 2021 May.

Abstract

Background: Patient blood management (PBM) is an evidence-based care bundle with proven ability to improve patients' outcomes by managing and preserving the patient's own blood. Since 2010, the World Health Organisation has urged member states to implement PBM. However, there has been limited progress in developing PBM programmes in hospitals due to the implicit challenges of implementing them. To address these challenges, we developed a Maturity Assessment Model (MAPBM) to assist healthcare organisations to measure, benchmark, assess in PBM, and communicate the results of their PBM programmes. We describe the MAPBM model, its benchmarking programme, and the feasibility of implementing it nationwide in Spain.

Materials and methods: The MAPBM considers the three dimensions of a transformation effort (structure, process and outcomes) and grades these within a maturity scale matrix. Each dimension includes the various drivers of a PBM programme, and their corresponding measures and key performance indicators. The structure measures are qualitative, and obtained using a survey and structured self-assessment checklist. The key performance indicators for process and outcomes are quantitative, and based on clinical data from the hospitals' electronic medical records. Key performance indicators for process address major clinical recommendations in each PBM pillar, and are applied to six common procedures characterised by significant blood loss.

Results: In its first 5 years, the MAPBM was deployed in 59 hospitals and used to analyse 181,826 hospital episodes, which proves the feasibility of implementing a sustainable model to measure and compare PBM clinical practice and outcomes across hospitals in Spain.

Conclusion: The MAPBM initiative aims to become a useful tool for healthcare organisations to implement PBM programmes and improve patients' safety and outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

DISCLOSURE OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

EB reports honoraria for lectures and/or travel support from Vifor Pharma, Sysmex, Takeda, OM Pharma and Zambon outside the submitted work. AGC was a Vifor Pharma employee at the time of starting to draft this manuscript. CI and LG are IQVIA employees. IQVIA was contracted by IMIM (Hospital del Mar Medical Research Institute) to support MAPBM project management, data processing and analytics. JV has nothing to disclose. McB reports having received travel support from Vifor Pharma España S.L. outside the submitted work. MB reports honoraria for lectures and travel support from Vifor Pharma outside the submitted work. MJC reports honoraria for lectures from Baxter, travel support and assistance to meetings from Vifor Pharma and CSL Bhering outside the submitted work. AH reports personal fees and travel support outside the submitted work from Instrumentation Laboratories Werfen (USA), Vifor Pharma International AG (Switzerland), Swiss Medical Network (Switzerland) and Celgene (Belgium); personal fees outside the submitted work from Vygon SA (France) and G1 Therapeutics (USA); and travel support outside the submitted work from South African National Blood Service (South Africa).

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Maturity Assessment for Patient Blood Management programme framework and maturity matrix
Figure 2
Figure 2
Structure dimensions and drivers
Figure 3
Figure 3
Process and Outcome dimensions, drivers and key performance indicators
Figure 4
Figure 4
Maturity Assessment for Patient Blood Management implementation roadmap
Figure 5
Figure 5
Hospitals’ characteristics
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Althoff FC, Neb H, Herrmann E, et al. Multimodal patient blood management program based on a three-pillar strategy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Surg. 2019;269:794–804. - PubMed
    1. Anthes E. Evidence-based medicine: save blood, save lives. Nature. 2015;520:24–6. - PubMed
    1. Shander A, Fink A, Javidroozi M, et al. Appropriateness of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion: the international consensus conference on transfusion outcomes. Transfus Med Rev. 2011;25:232–46.e53. - PubMed
    1. Pfuntner A, Wier LM, Stocks C. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Statistical Briefs [Internet] Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2013. Oct, 2006. Most frequent procedures performed in U.S. hospitals, 2011: statistical brief #165. - PubMed
    1. Shander A, editor. Appropriate Blood Management. Procedings from the National Summit on Overuse; [Accessed on 20/03/2020.]. https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/6/National_Summit_Overuse.pdf.

Publication types