Cargando…

Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment

BACKGROUND: Both donors and the blood bank rely on the result of the donor health interview. However, survey data suggest that substantial variability in deferral rates among interviewers exist. We studied whether variability remained after adjusting for conditional factors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Kort, Wim, Prinsze, Femmeke, Nuboer, Glenn, Twisk, Jos, Merz, Eva‐Maria
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379687/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30414176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.14984
_version_ 1783562697557671936
author de Kort, Wim
Prinsze, Femmeke
Nuboer, Glenn
Twisk, Jos
Merz, Eva‐Maria
author_facet de Kort, Wim
Prinsze, Femmeke
Nuboer, Glenn
Twisk, Jos
Merz, Eva‐Maria
author_sort de Kort, Wim
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Both donors and the blood bank rely on the result of the donor health interview. However, survey data suggest that substantial variability in deferral rates among interviewers exist. We studied whether variability remained after adjusting for conditional factors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The data set included Dutch interview data on whole blood donor visits in 2015, where one of their visits was selected randomly. We applied logistic regression and multilevel regression analyses with the donor visit, with the interviewer representing the levels. We set up four models: 1) all reasons deferral, 2) low‐hemoglobin‐level deferral, 3) infectious disease risk deferral and 4) other medical reasons deferral. RESULTS: In total, 138,398 visits were included in the study, of which 60,534 (43.7%) related to male donors. The overall deferral rate for men was 7.91% and for women 12.25%. Deferral rates among interviewers ranged from as low as 1.19% up to 28.8%. Models 2 (low hemoglobin level) and particularly 4 (other medical reasons), for both men and women, showed significant intraclass correlation coefficients, implying considerable deferral rate variability among interviewers. Donor age, the number of previous visits, and the season had relatively large effects. However, explained variances of the logistic regression models were relatively low, ranging from 2.53% to 7.35%. CONCLUSION: Deferral appears to be a random process, while substantial variability was found among interviewer deferral rates, suggesting that some interviewers are more cautious than others. Our results suggest heuristic and subjective diagnosing to be prevalent. Steps should be taken to improve interview result validity.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7379687
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-73796872020-07-27 Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment de Kort, Wim Prinsze, Femmeke Nuboer, Glenn Twisk, Jos Merz, Eva‐Maria Transfusion Blood Donors and Blood Collection BACKGROUND: Both donors and the blood bank rely on the result of the donor health interview. However, survey data suggest that substantial variability in deferral rates among interviewers exist. We studied whether variability remained after adjusting for conditional factors. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: The data set included Dutch interview data on whole blood donor visits in 2015, where one of their visits was selected randomly. We applied logistic regression and multilevel regression analyses with the donor visit, with the interviewer representing the levels. We set up four models: 1) all reasons deferral, 2) low‐hemoglobin‐level deferral, 3) infectious disease risk deferral and 4) other medical reasons deferral. RESULTS: In total, 138,398 visits were included in the study, of which 60,534 (43.7%) related to male donors. The overall deferral rate for men was 7.91% and for women 12.25%. Deferral rates among interviewers ranged from as low as 1.19% up to 28.8%. Models 2 (low hemoglobin level) and particularly 4 (other medical reasons), for both men and women, showed significant intraclass correlation coefficients, implying considerable deferral rate variability among interviewers. Donor age, the number of previous visits, and the season had relatively large effects. However, explained variances of the logistic regression models were relatively low, ranging from 2.53% to 7.35%. CONCLUSION: Deferral appears to be a random process, while substantial variability was found among interviewer deferral rates, suggesting that some interviewers are more cautious than others. Our results suggest heuristic and subjective diagnosing to be prevalent. Steps should be taken to improve interview result validity. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2018-11-09 2019-01 /pmc/articles/PMC7379687/ /pubmed/30414176 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.14984 Text en © 2018 The Authors. Transfusion published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of AABB. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Blood Donors and Blood Collection
de Kort, Wim
Prinsze, Femmeke
Nuboer, Glenn
Twisk, Jos
Merz, Eva‐Maria
Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment
title Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment
title_full Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment
title_fullStr Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment
title_full_unstemmed Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment
title_short Deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment
title_sort deferral rate variability in blood donor eligibility assessment
topic Blood Donors and Blood Collection
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7379687/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30414176
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/trf.14984
work_keys_str_mv AT dekortwim deferralratevariabilityinblooddonoreligibilityassessment
AT prinszefemmeke deferralratevariabilityinblooddonoreligibilityassessment
AT nuboerglenn deferralratevariabilityinblooddonoreligibilityassessment
AT twiskjos deferralratevariabilityinblooddonoreligibilityassessment
AT merzevamaria deferralratevariabilityinblooddonoreligibilityassessment