332 Cibmtr Data Management Training Survey 2012

Track: Contributed Abstracts
Wednesday, February 13, 2013, 6:45 PM-7:45 PM
Hall 1 (Salt Palace Convention Center)
Theresa M McKay , BMT, University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD
Kathleen Ruehle, RN, OCN, CHTC , BMT, University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center, Baltimore, MD
Purpose: Effective training of data managers (DM) is instrumental to assure accurate, quality data. The National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) and the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) network provide training resources and liaisons for each transplant center in order to assist in proper completion of the CIBMTR data collection forms. The University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center’s (UMGCC) Blood and Marrow Transplant (BMT) team utilizes the CIBMTR electronic training resources and liaisons, as well as other alternative training methods. Our team was interested in assessing the effectiveness of DM training methods and to enhance the CIBMTR DM training model.

Method: The UMGCC BMT team developed an anonymous, twenty-question survey on the various training methods implemented at 138 NMDP and CIBMTR-affiliated transplant centers in the U.S.  The survey consisted of quantitative and qualitative questions pertaining to demographics, prior DM experience, and training.

Results: Seventy DMs responded to the survey. Participant ages were well distributed with 29% of participants 18 to 34 years, 39% 35 to 49 years, and 33 % 50 to 64 years. Most respondents (66%) reported that they had been a CIBMTR DM for greater than 5 years. Half (51%) participated in monthly internal assessments and 57% worked at centers that performed over 100 transplants per year. When asked about training to become a DM, 51% reported having less than 1 week of training and 88% reported not being extremely satisfied with his/her DM training. Thirty percent had no previous experience with BMT-related information when they became a DM and most (53%) were not audited prior to independently completing CIBMTR forms. Training to complete CIBMTR forms ranged from none to training received from multiple sources.  At the time of the survey, 54% were not familiar with the current CIBMTR training model.

Conclusion: The CIBMTR DM Training Methods Survey shows that CIBMTR DMs vary by age, previous experience, and levels of training. Based on the data, it is evident that a training model, which incorporates specific procedures and methods, would be of value to CIBMTR DMs and the data they report. Standardized DM training would improve the accuracy and quality of data, which would contribute to the knowledge learned from hematopoietic stem cell transplant research.