Investigation on the current status of blood safety surveillance and management in blood collection and supply institutions in Sichuan, China
10.13303/j.cjbt.issn.1004-549x.2026.02.007
- VernacularTitle:四川省采供血机构血液安全监测管理现状调研分析
- Author:
Meng LI
1
;
Kefen WANG
1
;
Jialiang GAO
1
;
Lizhou ZHAO
1
;
Yishu WANG
1
;
Yidan ZHANG
1
;
Xuemei FU
1
Author Information
1. Blood Research Laboratory, Chengdu Blood Center, Chengdu 610020, China
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
blood safety surveillance;
adverse events in blood collection and supply process;
adverse blood donation reaction;
transfusion adverse reactions;
Sichuan province
- From:
Chinese Journal of Blood Transfusion
2026;39(2):209-216
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: Blood safety surveillance is a critical measure for the objective assessment of blood quality and enhancing transfusion safety. This study aims to comprehensively understand the current status of blood safety surveillance and management in blood collection and supply institutions in Sichuan Province, systematically analyze existing problems and vulnerabilities, and provide a basis for optimizing management strategies and improving capabilities to ensure blood safety. Methods: The Blood Safety Surveillance questionnaire was designed, covering adverse donor reaction reporting, management of adverse events, and transfusion adverse reaction feedback. An online survey was conducted via Questionnaire Star platform among 21 blood collection and supply institutions in the province, gathering information on management systems, process implementation, and utilization of monitoring data. The collected data were organized and statistically analyzed using Excel. Results: The questionnaire response rate and validity rate were both 100%. Blood collection and supply institutions in Sichuan Province have generally established a blood safety surveillance system and achieved positive outcomes. Regarding adverse events in blood collection and supply, 95.24% (20 institutions) have established reporting procedures, and 66.67% (14) collect information through multiple channels such as internal reports, external reports, and statistical trend feedback. A total of 90.48% (19) institutions regularly summarize and analyze adverse event data, and 85.71% (18) produce reports with improvement recommendations based on this analysis.71.43% (15) institutions implement reward and penalty measures, and 71.43% (15) report underreporting or omission due to accountability or performance concerns. In terms of monitoring adverse blood donation reactions, all blood collection and supply institutions have established full-process management systems.76.19% (16) collect data through multiple approaches, including on-site donation records, voluntary donor reports, and donor follow-ups. Adverse reactions were followed up in 95.24% (20) of institutions with 65% (13) completing follow-ups within 24 hours.80.95% (17) have established investigation procedures, while 66.67% (14) believe underreporting or omission still occurs. All blood collection and supply institutions regularly compile statistics on adverse donation reactions. Of these, 85.71% (18) institutions providing feedback to management departments and 90.48% (19) analyzing the data and making recommendations.76.19% (16) institutions use monitoring data for return donor management and targeted care, and 71.43% (15 stations) incorporate it into management reviews. Regarding adverse transfusion reactions, 95.24% (20) institutions have established and implemented procedures for isolating, recalling, and tracing of problematic blood units. However, only 42.86% (9) have established feedback mechanisms of adverse transfusion reaction with hospitals, and only 19.05% (4) support direct reporting via information systems.47.62% (10) institutions regularly analyze adverse transfusion reaction data, and 19.05% (4) provide feedback and recommendations to relevant hospitals. All blood collection and supply institutions reported challenges in collecting hospital feedback, citing complexities in data collection and reporting processes. Conclusion: Blood safety surveillance systems have been preliminarily established in Sichuan Province. However, further strengthening is still required, including conducting in-depth data analysis and utilization, standardizing the configuration of emergency medications and equipment, and improving feedback mechanisms for adverse transfusion reactions. To improve the overall level of blood safety management, it is recommended to strengthen closed-loop data management, improve feedback mechanisms between blood collection and supply institutions and hospitals, foster a non-punitive reporting culture, and systematically advance the regionalization and standardization of the monitoring system. These efforts will contribute to sustainably improving the overall effectiveness and sustainability of blood safety management.
