Chennai: Postgraduate doctors at a city college hospital had a good understanding of blood components and transfusion indications, but showed gaps in recognising and reporting adverse transfusion reactions, according to a study published in BMJ Open, a peer-reviewed journal.The gap could lead to under-reporting, limiting hospitals’ ability to investigate lapses, identify patterns and prevent similar harm to future patients. The researchers assessed the knowledge, attitudes and practices related to haemovigilance among 150 postgraduate doctors. Haemovigilance is a system used to monitor, document and analyse adverse events associated with blood transfusions. India’s programme, launched in 2012, collects information on adverse reactions related to blood transfusions to help hospitals investigate the cause of such reactions, improve transfusion procedures and strengthen patient safety. Both serious and non-serious reactions are meant to be reported.Nearly all participants were aware of different blood components. A similar number identified the blood products used to treat anaemia and thrombocytopenia, or low platelet count. All participants agreed that health institutions should enrol in the haemovigilance programme and report transfusion reactions. About 26%, or 39 of the 150 doctors, said they had formally reported a transfusion reaction, and 21.3%, or about 32 doctors, had attended a haemovigilance-specific education programme or workshop.The study found that, despite familiarity with blood components and transfusion indications, awareness of the national haemovigilance programme and the Transfusion Reaction Reporting Form remained limited. “Theoretical awareness alone is not enough,” said Akilandeeshwari K, the study’s first author from Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research. Doctors in training are often among the first to assess patients who develop fever, chills, breathing difficulty, rashes or other symptoms during or after a transfusion. Not every symptom is caused by a transfusion, but suspected reactions need prompt clinical assessment and reporting. Such documentation can help hospitals identify patterns, examine whether an error occurred and prevent recurrence.The researchers found that doctors with stronger knowledge tended to have better reporting practices. The association was stronger among those with favourable attitudes towards haemovigilance. “It must become a part of routine clinical practice, not an activity undertaken only after a serious event,” said Dr Anusha Dakshinamoorthi, the study’s corresponding author. “Structured teaching, hands-on exposure and a clear reporting pathway can make it easier for doctors to act when a transfusion reaction is suspected.”The authors recommended focused haemovigilance training for postgraduate doctors, refresher programmes, greater awareness of reporting forms and hospital systems that make reporting easier. Blood banks and hospital transfusion committees, they said, could help embed these practices into everyday clinical work.
