Evaluation of Response to Donor Notification of Reactive Transfusion Transmitted Infections (TTIs) Result
Evaluation of Response to Donor Notification ofReactive TTIs
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.70284/njirm.v3i2.1987Keywords:
Blood donors, Transfusion transmitted infections (TTIs), National blood policy (NBP),Response rateAbstract
Background:Although blood transfusion is a life saving therapy, it is associated with various ill effects, which can cause increased morbidity and mortality in recipients. Testing of all donated blood for transfusion transmitted infections (TTIs) such as HIV I & II, hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis is one of the strategies recommended by WHO to ensure safe blood. However, if the donor is already having an infection, transmissible by blood, the transfusion will be rather hazardous for the recipient. The national blood policy of India 2002 advocates the disclosure of results of transfusion transmitted infections (TTIs) to blood donors. Aim:To assess the attitude of the transfusion transmitted infections (TTIs) reactive blood donor in response to the post-donation calls from blood bank. Material and methods: A total of 20865 blood donors came to the department of IHBT in period of one year from 1St November 2009 to 31St October 2010.All donated blood was screened against HIV I & II , Hepatitis B, hepatitis C and syphilis and malaria. On screening the units, it was found that 391 donation units (1.874 %) were positive for one of the TTIs, namely HIV I & II, HBsAg, HCV or syphilis. As follow-up, these donors were recalled at blood bank by a phone call. Results: out of 391 reactive donors only 236 responded to call (average response rate was 60.36%). Conclusion: The study suggest that authorities should frame some guidelines and rules that can increase the response rate among reactive donors and make them assessable because it enables their future investigation and treatment and the prevention of diseases transmission to the community.
References
2. World Health Organisation(WHO). Blood transfusion safety.
3. Available from http://www.who.int/blood safety/testing processing/en/
4. National AIDS Control Organization (NACO). “Manual on quality standards for HIV testing laboratories †produced & published by NACO, ministry of health and family welfare, government of India, New Delhi publish in March 2007.
5. Government of India .Drugs and Cosmetics rules, 1945 (amended till 30TH June 2005 available from http://www.cdsco.nic.in/html/Drugs&cosmeticsAct.pdf.
6. National AIDS Control Organization (NACO). “national blood policy†produced & published by NACO, ministry of health and family welfare, government of India ,new delhi publish in june 2003 reprint 20077. National AIDS Control Organization (NACO) An action plan for blood safety. Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India. July 2003.
8. Sharma U K, Schreiber G B, Glynn S A et al. Knowledge of HIV/AIDS transmission and screening in United States blood donors. Transfusion. 2001; 41: 1341-50.
9. Roshan T M, Rosline H, Ahmed S A, Rapiaah M and Khattak M N. Response rate of Malaysian blood donors with reactive screening test to transfusion medicine unit calls. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health. 2009; 40 (6): 1315-21.
10. Tynell E, Norda R, Ekermo B, Sanner M, Andersson S, Bjorkman A. False-reactive microbiologic screening test results in Swedish blood donors-how big is the problem? A survey among blood centers and deferred donors. Transfusion. 2007; 47: 80-9.
11. Nilsson Sojka B, Sojka P. The blood-donation experience: perceived physical, psychological and social impact of blood donation on the donor. Vox Sang. 2003; 84: 120-8.
12. Moyer L A, Shapiro C N, Shulman G, Brugliera P D, Alter M J. A survey of hepatitis B surface antigen-positive blood donors: degree of understanding and action taken after notification. Transfusion. 1992; 32: 702-6.
13. Sanchez A M, Ameti D I, Schreiber G B, et al.The potential impact of incentives on future blood donation behaviour. Transfusion. 2001; 41: 172-8.
14. Kleinman S, Wang B, Wu Y, et al. The donor notification process from the donor’s perspective. Transfusion 2004; 44: 658-66.
