AABB October 2001 Presentations Summary

Listed at the bottom of this page are two AABB Quality Donor System™ (QDS) annual meeting presentations. One is a poster presentation by L Rogenski, P Cumming and L Katz entitled “Audio-Video Computer Assisted Self Interview (AV-CASI) of Blood Donors.” The presentation describes implementation of the Mississippi Valley Quality Donor System™ (MVQDS or QDS) in the spring and summer of 2001 and initial studies assessing outcome performance. The second by C. Bianco is an abstract of his presentation at the new technology session and expands on donor satisfaction data presented in the Rogenski work. A third presentation descriptive of QDS was made by Charles Mooney of the Oklahoma Blood Institute who has graciously provided his slides. The work is not included here because, after expert consultation, it was concluded that audience interest is in performance data, not additional system descriptions.

Research reported here is partially supported by a Small Business Innovation Research Phase II grant (HL61111) from the National Heart Lung & Blood Institute. Combined key points from the two presentations follow.

  1. QDS is a computerized way of asking blood donors the AABB Uniform Donor History Questions using a touch screen with on-screen text and pictures plus earphone audio.
  2. Unacceptable donor responses are highlighted, reviewed with a staff member, and annotated or amended as needed.
  3. The donor form cannot be printed until all aberrant responses have been documented and all questions answered.
  4. Validation was performed to 100% accuracy and staff trained using 5 mock interview scenarios.
  5. Donor satisfaction surveys established that across 7 measures, at minimum among those donors showing preference for one system or the other, donors preferred QDS to staff interviews by a factor of 4. Satisfaction/preference measures included likelihood of donating again, privacy, clarity, time, understanding, and truthfulness.
  6. QDS reduces staff errors/omissions by >60% compared to verbal screening with a two sided probability = 0.0006.
  7. Staff user surveys showed that a majority of staff prefer QDS except on two measures: time and cost. Staff are correct that donor time is longer with QDS; however, donors prefer QDS anyway. Staff are probably incorrect that QDS costs more, since staff fail to take account of the value of released staff time. Cost studies are being conducted, but are not as yet complete.
  8. Conclusions: No donors have refused to use QDS and they find QDS more private; staff are extremely satisfied with QDS; errors and omissions due to incomplete donor forms have decreased dramatically (>60%); and staff time is reduced by 3 minutes per donor. Data collection is underway examining other performance measures such as trends in post donation information and positive responses to deferrable risk questions.

Click here to view "Audio-Video Computer Assisted Self Interview (AV-CASI) of Blood Donors."

Click here to view "Impact of Current Screening Practices."





All images, text, and other content 2001-2014
Talisman Limited 501 Church Street NE, Suite 305 Vienna, Virginia 22180

Document last updated 9 January 2009