Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
  • Users Online:281
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 7  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 159-163

Donor notification and response rate in a stand-alone blood center in Western India


Life Blood Centre, Rajkot, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Spruha Dholakiya
Life Blood Centre, Rajkot, Gujarat
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/gjtm.gjtm_5_22

Rights and Permissions

Background and Objectives: Counseling and notification of reactive blood donors play an important part in maintaining the chain of safe blood. The process of notification involves informing donors about the status of their reactivity against five major and mandatory transfusion-transmitted infections (TTIs). Such notification and timely follow-up till the donor reaches the referred place help in reducing the burden of TTI in society, thereby improving blood safety. The aim of this study is to highlight the importance of prompt donor notification, referral, and follow-up. Materials and Methods: This was a retrospective cross-sectional study carried out at a stand-alone blood center from January 2019 to October 2021. A total of 36,162 donations were screened for the five mandatory TTIs-HIV (I and II), hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), syphilis, and malaria. All reactive results were retested with a duplicate tube sample and a bag sample to confirm the reactivity. Donors were notified regarding the serostatus by phone and called for reporting at our blood center, and referred to Integrated Testing & Counseling Centre (ICTC) or any other referral center. Results: A total of 212 (0.58%) out of 36162 donors were tested reactive during the study period. Out of them, 40.56% (n = 86) were hepatitis B virus reactive, 21.7% (n = 46) were HIV (I and II) reactive, 20.7% (n = 44) were HCV reactive, and remaining 17.1% (n = 36) were syphilis reactive. All the donors were informed. Out of them, 71.69% (n = 152) responded to the communication and 52.83% (n = 112) personally visited the blood center or respective ICTC for further evaluation. Conclusion: Even after laying strict criteria for predonation screening and counseling, few donors do conceal their high-risk behavior or even their serostatus and continue to donate blood, leading to the wastage of resources. Thorough follow-up of seroreactive donors helps in improving blood safety and also improves their quality of life by the commencement of timely treatment.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed154    
    Printed4    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded31    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal