Sara Bakhtary

Background Current Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB) standards require transfusion services to have a policy on Rh immune globulin (RhIG) immunoprophylaxis for when RhD‐negative patients are exposed to RhD‐positive red cells. This is a survey of AABB‐accredited transfusion services in the United States (US) regarding institutional policies and practices on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐negative patients receive RhD‐positive (i.e., RhD‐incompatible) packed red blood cell (pRBC) and platelet transfusions. Results Approximately half of the respondents (50.4%, 116/230) have policies on RhIG administration after RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, while others had policies for only pRBC (13.5%, 31/230) or only platelet (17.8%, 41/230) transfusions, but not both. In contrast, 18.3% (42/230) report that their institution has no written policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible transfusions. Most institutions (70.2%, 99/141) do not have policies addressing safety parameters to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required to prevent RhD alloimmunization after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusions. Discussion With approximately half of US AABB‐accredited institutions report having policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after both RhD‐incompatible pRBC and platelet transfusions, some institutions may not be in compliance with AABB standards. Further, most with policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD‐incompatible pRBC transfusion do not have written safeguards to mitigate the risk of hemolysis associated with the high dose of RhIG required. Conclusion This survey underscores the diverse and inadequate institutional policies on RhIG immunoprophylaxis after RhD exposure in Rh‐negative patients via transfusion. This observation identifies an opportunity to improve transfusion safety.

Background Intrauterine transfusion (IUT) is an invasive but critical and potentially life‐saving intervention for severe fetal anemia with demonstrated improvement in outcomes. The fetus is vulnerable to hemodynamic alterations and transfusion‐related adverse events; therefore, special consideration must be given to blood component selection and modification. There is widespread IUT practice variability, and existing guidance primarily relies on expert opinion and single center experiences. Study Design and Methods Experts in Maternal Fetal Medicine, Pediatric Hematology, and Transfusion Medicine from centers across the United States, collectively performing about 120 IUT annually, offer a multidisciplinary perspective on the performance of IUT and preparation of blood components. This perspective includes strategies for identifying an at‐risk fetus, communicating between disciplines, determining the necessary blood volume, selecting and processing blood components, documenting the procedure in medical record, and managing the neonate. Results Identifying an at‐risk fetus relies on review of the clinical history, non‐invasive monitoring, and laboratory evaluation. We recommend the use of relatively fresh, group O, cytomegalovirus‐safe, freshly irradiated, red blood cells (RBC) that are Hemoglobin S negative and antigen‐negative for any maternal antibody, if indicated. These RBC units should be concentrated to remove additives and increase the hematocrit thus minimizing fluctuations in fetal volume status. The units intended for IUT should be labeled clearly and the documentation of transfusion differentiated in the maternal medical record. Discussion An awareness of the technical, logistical, and regulatory considerations for IUT performance will facilitate improved communication and patient care, especially when rare units of RBC are required.

Background Given the prevalence and risks of blood transfusion, it is essential that trainees and practicing clinicians have a thorough understanding of relevant transfusion medicine competencies. The aim of this research was to develop and gather validity evidence for an instrument to assess knowledge of core transfusion‐related competencies. Methods We developed the safe transfusion assessment tool (STAT) using a multistep process. Initially, 20 core competencies in transfusion medicine were identified through a consensus‐driven Delphi process. Learning objectives and assessment items pertinent to each competency were created. Next, a 13‐item assessment tool was piloted with multidisciplinary experts and trainees. Multiple iterative revisions were made based on feedback. Finally, the 12‐item STAT was administered to 100 participants of varying training level and specialty to establish validity, difficulty and item discrimination indices, and perceived utility. Results Analysis of instrument item difficulty and item discrimination indices demonstrated the ability of the STAT to assess essential knowledge in transfusion medicine relevant to trainees and clinicians in multiple programs and practice settings. Eight of twelve items discriminated between learners with varying degrees of expertise. Hundred percent of students and trainees rated the STAT as Extremely Helpful or Somewhat Helpful and the majority planned to utilize the answer guide as a study aid. Conclusion The STAT is a concise, valid, and reliable knowledge assessment tool that may be used by researchers and educators to augment transfusion medicine curricula ( www.safetransfusion.ucsf.edu ). Scores can help inform departments on areas in which trainees require additional support and areas of potential educational interventions.