Retrospective study assesses donor notification impact on transfusion-transmitted infection awareness and response rates.
AIM AND BACKGROUND: Donor notification and counseling are critical components of a safe and ethical blood transfusion system. This study highlights the need to strengthen donor follow-up to ensure timely communication and care. By improving response rates, we not only protect recipients but also empower donors with vital health information. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective, record-based study was conducted in the Department of Immunohematology and Blood Transfusion at Pt. B. D. Sharma Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak, over a period of 2 years. A total of 81,909 donors were registered, of whom 76,682 were found eligible. As part of routine blood bank practice, each donor had undergone medical screening, counseling, and transfusion-transmitted infection(s) (TTIs) awareness. All collected blood units were routinely tested for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), HCV, syphilis, and malaria using standard methods. Donors with reactive screening results were notified up to three times at weekly intervals as per standard protocol. RESULTS: Among the 81,909 individuals who registered for blood donation, 76,682 were found eligible to donate. Out of these eligible donors, 2475 (3.22%) tested reactive for transfusion-transmitted infection(s) (TTIs). Hepatitis C had the highest prevalence (1.28%), followed by hepatitis B (1.03%), syphilis (0.58%), and HIV I and II (0.32%). The majority of reactive cases were reported in male donors, with the highest number observed in the 26–30-year age group. Approximately 84% of the reactive donors responded to notification. CONCLUSION: Our study highlights that a structured protocol of three telephonic notifications at weekly intervals, implemented as part of routine practice, achieved a high response rate of 83.51%. Notifying reactive donors is not merely procedural but an opportunity to support, inform, and protect, guided by awareness, trust, and empathy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Singh et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: