Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2015 Apr;55(4):703-7.
doi: 10.1111/trf.12980. Epub 2015 Jan 7.

How is national recipient hemovigilance conducted in the United States?

Affiliations

How is national recipient hemovigilance conducted in the United States?

Koo-Whang Chung et al. Transfusion. 2015 Apr.

Abstract

A national recipient hemovigilance system was introduced in the United States in 2010, when voluntary enrollment began as part of the National Healthcare Safety Network (NHSN) Hemovigilance Module. NHSN is a secure, Web-based surveillance system operated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and used by US health care facilities to report a variety of patient safety information. The Hemovigilance Module is used for comprehensive monitoring of transfusion-related adverse events. Participating facilities can utilize analytic tools available within the module to identify opportunities for enhancing transfusion safety, evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and compare facility specific transfusion-related data to aggregate national estimates. Data may be voluntarily shared by facilities with external partners for patient safety improvement initiatives and to fulfill reporting mandates. We describe the key characteristics of the Hemovigilance Module, highlight the benefits for participating facilities, and discuss the use of reported data for establishing national estimates of transfusion-associated adverse events to identify gaps in transfusion safety and opportunities for interventions. National hemovigilance systems are essential to recognize gaps in transfusion safety and identify opportunities for interventions to improve patient safety and outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Development timeline of the NHSN Hemovigilance Module
The concept for the Hemovigilance Module was introduced in 2006 with development beginning in 2007 in collaboration with expert groups convened by AABB. In 2009, the module was piloted in 9 facilities, and national enrollment began in January 2010. In 2011, the total number of facilities that enrolled in the module reached 100. The first progress reports were presented in 2012. In 2013, in an effort to increase participation, the protocol was simplified such that near-miss and no-harm incidents were no longer required.
Figure 2
Figure 2. NHSN Hemovigilance Module Data Flow Chart
Participating hospitals report an annual survey, components transfused monthly, adverse transfusion reactions, and incidents associated with reactions to the NHSN Hemovigilance Module. CDC conducts national aggregate data analyses. Facilities may also share their data with groups within NHSN. Groups may include patient safety organizations (PSO), hospital systems, and state and local health departments. These data can be used for benchmarking, allowing hospitals to monitor transfusion processes and outcomes, or fulfilling state and local mandatory reporting. Facilities may use the data for facility-level process improvements.
Figure 3
Figure 3. General case definition criteria for an adverse transfusion reaction to NHSN Hemovigilance Module
The NHSN Hemovigilance Module protocol specifies the case definition for 12 adverse transfusion reactions based on the presence of signs, symptoms, and laboratory and radiographic data. Reactions are reported with a severity designation based on clinical outcomes. Imputability designations which specify the likelihood that reaction was associated with the transfusion event are also reported.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Robillard P, Nawej KI, Jochem K. The Quebec hemovigilance system: description and results from the first two years. Transfus Apher Sci. 2004;31:111–22. - PubMed
    1. Strong D, AuBuchon J, Whitaker B, Kuehnert M. Biovigilance initiatives. ISBT Science Series. 2008;3:77–84.
    1. Andreu G, Morel P, Forestier F, Debeir J, Rebibo D, Janvier G, Herve P. Hemovigilance network in France: organization and analysis of immediate transfusion incident reports from 1994 to 1998. Transfusion. 2002;42:1356–64. - PubMed
    1. Giampaolo A, Piccinini V, Catalano L, Abbonizio F, Hassan HJ. The first data from the haemovigilance system in Italy. Blood Transfus. 2007;5:66–74. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Stainsby D, Jones H, Asher D, Atterbury C, Boncinelli A, Brant L, Chapman CE, Davison K, Gerrard R, Gray A, Knowles S, Love EM, Milkins C, McClelland DB, Norfolk DR, Soldan K, Taylor C, Revill J, Williamson LM, Cohen H, Group SS. Serious hazards of transfusion: a decade of hemovigilance in the UK. Transfus Med Rev. 2006;20:273–82. - PubMed