Post-donation telephonic interview: A tool for active follow-up of voluntary whole blood donors for analysis of frequency and predisposing factors of adverse reactions

Objectives: Blood donation experience by most donors is satisfactory; however, a few may encounter adverse reactions. Healthy, altruistic, voluntary blood donors ensure adequate blood supply despite the potential risk of adverse reactions. Post-donation follow-up is crucial to get information about these adverse reactions. This study aimed to evaluate the frequency and type of adverse donor reactions and their correlation with contributory factors if any among the blood donors in a tertiary care oncology center. Material and Methods: It was a prospective observational study of 1000 consecutive voluntary whole blood donors who consented to participate in the study. Donors were followed up telephonically on two instances (first after 24 h of donation and second after 2 weeks of donation) and were asked a self-structured donor questionnaire to collect information regarding the adverse donor reactions if any. An appropriate statistical tool was used for analysis (IBM, SPSS software). Results: Of the 1000 voluntary whole blood donors, 92.6% (926/1000) responded to telephonic calls on both occasions. Of these 926, 8.5% (79/926) donors experienced adverse reactions. All these donors experienced immediate reactions, that is, within 24 h of donation while none reported fresh adverse reactions beyond 24 h–2 weeks. Of the 79 donors, 60% (49/79) experienced vasovagal reactions (VVR) and 40% (32/79) experienced hematoma including two donors who experienced both. A total of 86% (68/79) of reactions occurred in outdoor blood donation camps while 14% (11/79) occurred in-house (indoor). First time donors, female donors, and donors with weight on the lower side were more prone to immediate VVR (P < 0.05). Of the 49 VVR, 76% (37/49) were mild, 18% (9/49) were moderate, and 6% (3/49) were severe. Most of the hematomas, that is, 90% (29/32) occurred at outdoor blood donation camps while 10% (3/32) occurred indoor. Most hematomas (53%) took more than 7 days to recover. Conclusion: Post-donation interview proves to be an efficient tool to acquire information about adverse donor reactions. This will help in improving donor safety and satisfaction and will have a positive impact on the national blood supply by improving the donor return rate. Blood transfusion services (BTSs) staff must be trained to promptly identify the donor reactions onsite and manage them to enhance the donation experience of voluntary donors. Post-donation follow-up will aid in getting the donation experience and BTS can develop strategies to enhance it. This will also help in donor hemovigilance in the future for the betterment of donor safety.