Methods: The initial part of this study is a descriptive cross-sectional study involving data collection from all requests sent for group, screen, and hold (GSH) and group and cross match (GXM) tests from 2011 to 2017. The association between sociodemographic, workplace, and experience factors with near-miss events amongst HO was analyzed with a case-control study using logistic regression.
Results: We reported 83 near-miss events with a prevalence of 0.034% (95% confidence interval 0.027-0.042). The rate of near-miss events was one in every 2916 requests. The mean reporting rate was 11.9 events per year. Clinical near miss predominated at 89.2% compared to 10.8% laboratory near miss. Mislabeled events (33.7%) were more than miscollected events (10.8%). HO were implicated with most events (83.1%). Most events were predominantly in the medical and obstetrics and gynecology wards amounting to 31.3% each. We found a significant association between the ages of HO with near-miss events.
Conclusions: The prevalence of near-miss events in our hospital was relatively low. Our study has shown areas for improvement include improving sampling practices in clinical areas, adequate training of laboratory technicians, and providing proper transfusion education. Interventions such as encouraging compliance to guidelines and training in clinical and laboratory areas to minimize the risk of mistransfusion should be considered.
Methods: In this descriptive, cross-sectional study, a census sample of 76 midwives from two public hospitals and urban health centers in Torbat Heydariyeh, a city east of Iran were surveyed. Data collection tools were two reliable and valid questionnaires that measure midwives' attitudes and barriers of implementation of evidence-based practice. Data were analysed using SPSS version 16.
Results: The mean age and years of experience were 29.30 ± 4.86 and 5.22 ± 4.21 years, respectively. The mean score of attitude was 40.85 ± 4.84 (range = 30-60). This study also found time constraints (2.70 ± 0.92), inadequate facilities (2.64 ± 0.72), non-compilation of literature in one place (2.59 ± 0.92), lack of cooperation of physicians (2.48 ± 1.06) and the feeling of inadequate authority (2.45 ± 0.88) as the top five barriers to implementing EBP.
Conclusion: Survey participants demonstrated a positive attitude toward EBP. Organisational comprehensive strategies such as time efficiency, adequate material and human resources, familiarity with organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration and managerial support for increasing professional legitimate authority are recommended to promote the use of Evidence-Based Practice in Iran.