How uniform is donor history questionnaire for screening potential blood donors: a critical analysis

J. K. Kairi, M. Kaur
{"title":"How uniform is donor history questionnaire for screening potential blood donors: a critical analysis","authors":"J. K. Kairi, M. Kaur","doi":"10.18203/2319-2003.IJBCP20211024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Transfusion of whole blood or blood products are a clinical necessity in numerous clinical conditions. Blood donated from healthy human volunteers is the only method currently available to acquire blood transfusion and production of blood products. Donor history questionnaire (DHQ) contributes immensely to ensure safe blood donation. The aim was to compare the donor history questionnaire for blood donation deferral of various regions and organizations with that of World Health Organization (WHO). Methods: An extensive internet search for donor history questionnaires (DHQ) for blood donation deferral of different regions, countries and organization was conducted. Seven such forms were found which could be downloaded. A critical analysis of these forms was conducted based on history pertaining to use of medicines, disease history or procedure undergone recently. A comparative analysis was conducted finally with the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations on the issue of donor screening and deferral. Descriptive analysis was done for comparison of donor history questionnaires in regards to drugs taken, disease history and invasive procedures performed. Results: After the analysis of the DHQs, we found that despite many similarities, there were significant differences in the questionnaires. The differences were more with respect to questions asked about the medicines, both traditional as well as modern. Conclusions: DHQs analysed by us revealed wide variations in their enquiry from potential donors about exposure to prescription medicines as well as the disease history. A suggestion is that more questions related to alternative medicines, nutraceuticals and other similar xenobiotic should be included.","PeriodicalId":13898,"journal":{"name":"International journal of basic and clinical pharmacology","volume":"1 1","pages":"409"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of basic and clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.IJBCP20211024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Transfusion of whole blood or blood products are a clinical necessity in numerous clinical conditions. Blood donated from healthy human volunteers is the only method currently available to acquire blood transfusion and production of blood products. Donor history questionnaire (DHQ) contributes immensely to ensure safe blood donation. The aim was to compare the donor history questionnaire for blood donation deferral of various regions and organizations with that of World Health Organization (WHO). Methods: An extensive internet search for donor history questionnaires (DHQ) for blood donation deferral of different regions, countries and organization was conducted. Seven such forms were found which could be downloaded. A critical analysis of these forms was conducted based on history pertaining to use of medicines, disease history or procedure undergone recently. A comparative analysis was conducted finally with the World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations on the issue of donor screening and deferral. Descriptive analysis was done for comparison of donor history questionnaires in regards to drugs taken, disease history and invasive procedures performed. Results: After the analysis of the DHQs, we found that despite many similarities, there were significant differences in the questionnaires. The differences were more with respect to questions asked about the medicines, both traditional as well as modern. Conclusions: DHQs analysed by us revealed wide variations in their enquiry from potential donors about exposure to prescription medicines as well as the disease history. A suggestion is that more questions related to alternative medicines, nutraceuticals and other similar xenobiotic should be included.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于筛选潜在献血者的献血者史问卷有多统一:一项关键分析
背景:在许多临床情况下,全血或血液制品输血是临床必需的。健康人类志愿者捐献的血液是目前获得输血和生产血液制品的唯一方法。献血者历史问卷(DHQ)对确保安全献血有巨大贡献。目的是比较各地区和组织的献血者史问卷与世界卫生组织(WHO)的延迟献血问卷。方法:通过网络广泛检索不同地区、国家和组织的献血者延迟献血史问卷(DHQ)。发现了七种可以下载的表格。根据与药物使用有关的历史、病史或最近接受的手术,对这些表格进行了批判性分析。最后与世界卫生组织(卫生组织)关于捐助者筛选和推迟问题的建议进行了比较分析。对供体史问卷进行描述性分析,比较所使用药物、病史和进行侵入性手术的情况。结果:通过对dhq的分析,我们发现问卷虽然有很多相似之处,但也存在着显著的差异。差异更多的是关于传统和现代药物的问题。结论:我们分析的dhq显示,在向潜在献血者询问处方药物暴露和疾病史方面存在很大差异。一项建议是,应该包括更多与替代药物、营养品和其他类似的异种药物有关的问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Assessment of KaraShieldTM properties in supporting the immune health of healthy subjects: a randomized, parallel, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical study Knowledge attitude and practices of drug promotional literature: a clinician’s perspective Evaluation of β-blockers dosage regimen rationality in heart failure patients Perceptions of undergraduate medical students of old traditional and new CBME curriculum about pharmacovigilance and adverse drug reactions reporting at a tertiary care teaching hospital: a comparative study Comparison of efficacy of azilsartan with olmesartan in patients of hypertension: randomized controlled trial
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1