BACKGROUND

Intraoperative transfusion for gynecologic surgery, when appropriately used, can improve patient outcomes. However, when utilized incorrectly, blood transfusion can worsen patient outcomes and increase patient cost. This study aimed to evaluate the blood transfusion practices of tertiary hospitals in the Philippines.

METHODS

The study utilized a cross-sectional design wherein prospective data were gathered through multiple sources across seven tertiary-level hospitals. Women admitted to undergo gynecologic surgery were recruited based on a set of criteria. A chart review was conducted, and blood utilization indices were calculated. Outcomes were compared between public versus private facilities and transfused versus nontransfused patients.

RESULTS

Among 514 patients, 79.7% underwent cross-matching and 75.1% received transfusions. Adverse events were rare, with no transfusion-related deaths. The overall crossmatch-to-transfusion ratio (C/T ratio) was 2.8, exceeding the 2.5 optimal benchmark; all public hospitals recorded a C/T ratio >2.5, whereas private centers had more efficient usage. Six hospitals met acceptable benchmarks for transfusion probability and transfusion index. Open abdominal procedures, particularly hysterectomy, accounted for the most blood used. Transfused patients had longer operative times, greater blood loss, lower preoperative hemoglobin, and more frequently involved resident physicians in training. Public hospitals recorded higher cross-match and transfusion rates, greater resident physician participation, and broader use of general anesthesia.

CONCLUSION

Results of the study highlight the importance of monitoring blood transfusion parameters to optimize blood utilization. The observed differences between public and private institutions in the country highlight the urgent need for standardized and evidence-based practice to ensure efficient transfusion protocols nationwide.

Human ; Female ; Blood Transfusion

It has been recognized that, to help ensure research caters to the needs of society, a research agenda must be set.[1–3] When a health research agenda is set, it will help prioritize the implementation of health researches that will in turn help improve society’s public health system. This way, evidence is provided to help guide policy decisions on health development.[1,4] Such was the context by which the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA) was created and has evolved in its three editions. In NUHRA 2017–2022, six themes of priority research were identified. These included responsive health systems, research to enhance and extend healthy lives, holistic approaches to health and wellness, health resiliency, global competitiveness and innovation in health, and research in equity and health.

Background: Considering the scope and magnitude of the National Unified Health Research Agenda (NUHRA), the implementation of the agenda requires adequate planning. Reviewing the implementation of the first and second versions of NUHRA, implemented from 2006 to 2010 and from 2011 to 2016 respectively, is thus useful in identifying potential challenges for implementing the current version. Objectives: This article aimed to 1) describe strategies employed in the previous NUHRAs,2) describe uptake of the previous NUHRAs; and 3) identify lessons learned from the implementation of NUHRA 1 and 2. Methods: Review of the NUHRA 1 and 2 evaluation reports and minutes of PNHRS Research Agenda Committee meeting was conducted. Interviews with PCHRD division head and staff and representatives from the academe and regional consortia were also conducted. Results: A total of 96 of the 422 NUHRA 1 priorities were implemented, while 45 of the 56 NUHRA 2 priorities were implemented. While NUHRA 1 implementation was delegated to numerous agencies, dissemination was conducted primarily by PCHRD through launch events and fora. Implementation of the NUHRA 2 was delegated only to the four core agencies of the PNHRS, with each agency employing different strategies for the dissemination of the NUHRA 2. Conclusion Involvement of agencies beyond the core of PNHRS may be the better direction for implementation of the current NUHRA. Strong support and commitment of the core agencies will be key in the effective implementation of the NUHRA.
Health priorities