4.2 Article

A study of blood transfusion services at a district hospital in Malawi

期刊

VOX SANGUINIS
卷 104, 期 1, 页码 37-45

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1423-0410.2012.01628.x

关键词

blood donation testing; donors; quality management; transfusion - paediatrics; transfusion - transmissible infections; transfusion medicine (in general)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and objectives Severe anaemia is an important cause of mortality in developing countries. However, few studies have explored the use of and possibilities for blood transfusion services. The aims of this study are to explore the use of blood transfusion services at a hospital in sub-Saharan Africa and to assess the quality of the transfusion services according to WHO guidelines. Materials and methods Patient age, gender, haemoglobin (Hb) level, diagnosis, hospital department and replacement donations were recorded for all blood transfusions administered at a district hospital in Malawi in January 2010. The laboratory equipment and procedures were scored according to WHO guidelines. Results The mean Hb of transfused patients was 4.8 g/dl. Fifty-seven per cent (59/104) of the transfusions were given to children diagnosed with malaria, and 17% (18/104) were given to pregnant women. During the study period, blood was in stock and available for transfusion within 1 h of requisition. The equipment and procedures at this hospital met the main criteria for an adequate WHO stage of development. Conclusion In contrast to the advanced transfusion medicine in developed nations, our findings highlight the persistent and urgent need for life-saving blood transfusions in especially young children and pregnant women in Africa. The results indicate that blood transfusion services adapted to local conditions may be a realistic solution for providing safe blood products in developing countries. Serious challenges, such as HIV transmission and sustainable organization of low-risk blood donations should be addressed to assure access to safe blood products.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据