Evaluation and improvement of blood donor educational materials: results from a multicenter randomized controlled trial
Wehrli G, Rossmann SN, Waxman DA, Katz LM
Free full text
BACKGROUND Blood collection centers are charged with creating donor educational materials (DnEM) that are easily understood across all prospective donor populations, while addressing mandates and recommendations from regulatory agencies and professional standard setting organizations. Donors must have sufficient information to understand the donation process with its risks and benefits, time to consider options before deciding, and opportunity to choose whether to proceed with or decline donating. The goal of this multisite randomized controlled trial was to evaluate knowledge acquired using standardized DnEM. America's Blood Centers' Working Group (WG) for Donor Education and Communication was formed to evaluate and suggest modifications of these documents. Based on pilot work, a randomized clinical trial was designed to test donor knowledge across a variety of populations. The WG identified several shortcomings in the current DnEM and proposed new DnEM. The new DnEM were tested against the same, current DnEM being used at all three sites (Blood Donor Educational Material, 2016 version 2.0, published in conjunction with the AABB uniform donor history questionnaire). METHODS AND MATERIALS One-hundred sixty-five first time and returning donors were randomized in a 2x2 model to review either new DnEM or current DnEM. Every participant completed a pre- and post-quiz that tested their understanding of the DnEM. RESULTS Returning donors had greater baseline knowledge compared to new donors, but new donors improved more versus returning donors. Donors using the new DnEM showed greater improvement in knowledge than those using current DnEM. CONCLUSION Comprehension of DnEM can be improved. With this sample size the results suggest that the findings are independent of demographic characteristics, but a larger study would be necessary to confirm this.
Red blood cell transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB
Carson JL, Grossman BJ, Kleinman S, Tinmouth AT, Marques MB, Fung MK, Holcomb JB, Illoh O, Kaplan LJ, Katz LM, et al
Annals of Internal Medicine. 2012;157((1):):49-58.
Description: Although approximately 85 million units of red blood cells (RBCs) are transfused annually worldwide, transfusion practices vary widely. The AABB (formerly, the American Association of Blood Banks) developed this guideline to provide clinical recommendations about hemoglobin concentration thresholds and other clinical variables that trigger RBC transfusions in hemodynamically stable adults and children. Methods: These guidelines are based on a systematic review of randomized clinical trials evaluating transfusion thresholds. We performed a literature search from 1950 to February 2011 with no language restrictions. We examined the proportion of patients who received any RBC transfusion and the number of RBC units transfused to describe the effect of restrictive transfusion strategies on RBC use. To determine the clinical consequences of restrictive transfusion strategies, we examined overall mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, cardiac events, pulmonary edema, stroke, thromboembolism, renal failure, infection, hemorrhage, mental confusion, functional recovery, and length of hospital stay. Recommendation 1: The AABB recommends adhering to a restrictive transfusion strategy (7 to 8 g/dL) in hospitalized, stable patients (Grade: strong recommendation; high-quality evidence). Recommendation 2: The AABB suggests adhering to a restrictive strategy in hospitalized patients with preexisting cardiovascular disease and considering transfusion for patients with symptoms or a hemoglobin level of 8 g/dL or less (Grade: weak recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). Recommendation 3: The AABB cannot recommend for or against a liberal or restrictive transfusion threshold for hospitalized, hemodynamically stable patients with the acute coronary syndrome (Grade: uncertain recommendation; very low-quality evidence). Recommendation 4: The AABB suggests that transfusion decisions be influenced by symptoms as well as hemoglobin concentration (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). 2012 American College of Physicians.