## 5 Results  
The following text sets out the four main considerations that are essential for an effective application of the proposed methodology:  
1. The first step involves considering FMEA scores as decision-making criteria, followed by determining their respective weights based on their order of importance within \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c l c c c c c} \hline \hline
**FM** & **Failure Mode Description** & **S** & **O** & **D** & **RPN** & **Rank** \\ \hline
1 & Insufficient and/or incorrect clinical information on request form & 7 & 6 & 3 & 126 & 5 \\ \hline
2 & Blood plasma abuse & 6 & 6 & 5 & 180 & 4 \\ \hline
3 & Insufficient preoperative assessment of the blood product requirement & 7 & 5 & 7 & 245 & 1 \\ \hline
4 & Blood group verification incomplete & 7 & 5 & 3 & 105 & \\ \hline
5 & No etiology detection samples before blood transfusion & 8 & 7 & 1 & 56 & \\ \hline
6 & Non-cancellation of ordering special blood components & 7 & 3 & 1 & 21 & \\ \hline
7 & Sample for type and cross drawn from the wrong patient or incorrectly labeled & 10 & 1 & 2 & 20 & \\ \hline
8 & Insufficient/unclear information on the sample label & 7 & 2 & 2 & 28 & \\ \hline
9 & Delivery of blood sample and/or request form delayed & 5 & 3 & 6 & 90 & \\ \hline
10 & Inaccurate cross-matching & 10 & 1 & 6 & 60 & \\ \hline
11 & Incorrect blood components issued & 10 & 1 & 8 & 80 & \\ \hline
12 & Quality checks not performed on blood products & 8 & 2 & 5 & 80 & \\ \hline
13 & Blood components for different patients issued at the same time & 8 & 1 & 3 & 24 & \\ \hline
14 & Blood product delivered to the wrong department & 10 & 1 & 2 & 20 & \\ \hline
15 & Failure to perform pretrarfusion checks & 10 & 1 & 2 & 20 & \\ \hline
16 & Preparation time before infusion \textgreater{} 30 min & 8 & 6 & 5 & 240 & 2 \\ \hline
17 & Transfusion cannot be completed within the appropriate time & 7 & 4 & 4 & 112 & \\ \hline
18 & Blood transfusion reaction occurs during the transfusion process & 8 & 4 & 7 & 224 & 3 \\ \hline
19 & Bags of blood products are improperly disposed of & 7 & 4 & 4 & 112 & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Description of the failure modes considered in the study by [PERSON] et al. [37], assessment of the risk variables, and the respective RPNs. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**FM** & **S** & **O** & **D** & **RPN** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Ranking** \\ **RPN** \\ \end{tabular}  & \ \begin{tabular}{c} **Ranking** \\ **Fuzzy VIKOR** \\ \end{tabular}  & \begin{tabular}{c} **Ranking** \\ **ITHWD** \\ \end{tabular}  \\ \hline
1 & 7 & 6 & 3 & 126 & 5 & 4 & 4 \\ \hline
2 & 6 & 6 & 5 & 180 & 4 & 7 & 6 \\ \hline
3 & 7 & 5 & 7 & 245 & 1 & 2 & 1 \\ \hline
4 & 7 & 5 & 3 & 105 & 8 & 8 & 10 \\ \hline
9 & 5 & 3 & 6 & 90 & 9 & 11 & 11 \\ \hline
11 & 10 & 1 & 8 & 80 & 10 & 1 & 3 \\ \hline
12 &the risk scenario context. These relative weights are calculated using the Rank Order Centroid (ROC) method. Since the CoCoSo method does not provide a specific methodology for assigning criteria weights, the ROC method emerges as the most suitable option due to its simplicity and effectiveness, as it assigns weights solely based on the established order of importance. This approach proves highly practical in FMEA, especially when compared to more complex alternatives such as the AHP method, which adds significant complexity without proportional improvements in results. 2. According to the FMEA framework and variable definitions, severity and occurrence are considered beneficial variables because higher scores indicate greater criticality of the failure mode, aligning with the goal of identifying the most critical failure modes. In contrast, detectability is treated as a non-beneficial variable because higher scores imply reduced detectability, increasing overall risk. This classification reflects an inverse relationship with risk reduction.