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
. 2022 Feb 28;49(5):306-314.
doi: 10.1159/000522101. eCollection 2022 Sep.

Completing the Donor History Questionnaire before the Donation Visit Can Improve Blood Safety

Juliane Neugebauer  1 , Christina Hagen  1 , Christian Brockmann  1 , David Juhl  1 , Sven Ole Schuster  1 , Dagmar Steppat  1 , Siegfried Görg  1 , Malte Ziemann  1
Affiliations

Completing the Donor History Questionnaire before the Donation Visit Can Improve Blood Safety

Juliane Neugebauer et al. Transfus Med Hemother. .

Abstract

Background and objectives: In Germany, the donor history questionnaire (DHQ) is traditionally filled in at the donation center to avoid any influence of others. Since March 2020, it has been suggested to donors to answer the DHQ already at home and to call if they have any concerns to reduce the number of ineligible donors on-site during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Materials and methods: We evaluated the rate of ineligible donors before and after March 2020. Additionally, an anonymous online survey asking for the donors' attitude towards the DHQ was performed. It included questions on whether and for what reason the DHQ had been answered incorrectly in the past.

Results: The rate of ineligible donors decreased by 27% (from 7.1% to 5.2%). In total, 5,556 of 10,252 invited donors completed the survey (54.2%). 88.6% reported either going through the DHQ at home or knowing all questions from their previous donations. 444 donors (8.0%) had at least once postponed a donation after reading the DHQ at home. 68 donors (1.2%) admitted having intentionally provided false answers in the past (9 at home, 43 on-site, 14 both, 2 unknown). Not wanting to be rejected once arriving at the donation center was an important motivation for 42% of donors answering incorrectly on-site. Details on 46 incorrect answers were provided: only 17 had no influence on donor eligibility or product quality. In 5 cases, some blood products might have had impaired quality. Truthful answers to 17 questions would have led to deferral, mostly due to increased risk for unrecognized viral infections transmitted by sexual contacts. For a further 7 questions, there was insufficient information available to determine possible consequences. Asked about their general opinion, 753 (13.6%) of all donors estimated the risk of incorrect answers being greater on-site, while 239 (4.3%) presumed an increased risk at home.

Conclusion: Answering the DHQ prior to a donation visit prevented ineligible donors from visiting the donation center. Furthermore, it might improve honesty, as the discomfort of being deferred after arriving at the donation center was an important reason to answer incorrectly. Overall, there was no increased risk of donor or product safety, and potentially even a benefit.

Keywords: Blood safety; Deferral rate; Donor history questionnaire; Donor selection; Transfusion-transmitted infections.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Since March 21, 2020, the donors are asked to fill in the donor history questionnaire (DHQ) already prior to arrival for their donation visit. The figure shows a distinctly lower proportion of ineligible donors presenting at the donation center during the 12 months after March 2020 compared to the 12 months previous to the change. The deferral rates shown include all deferrals (e.g., both deferrals due to the donors' anamnesis, as well as low hemoglobin or aberrant vital signs).
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow chart of donors participating in the online survey and survey results concerning time and place of reading the donor history questionnaire (DHQ).
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Motivations of the 2,036 donors reporting not reading the donor history questionnaire (DHQ) at home.
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Motivations for incorrect answers in the donor history questionnaire (DHQ) according to the online survey (multiple answers were possible). 65 donors provided reasons why they answered the DHQ incorrectly in the past.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. European Committee (Partial Agreement) on Blood Transfusion, European Commission. Good Practice Guidelines for Blood Establishment Required to Comply with Directive 2005/62/EC [Internet]. 2018 Feb [cited 2021 Jul 26] Available from: https://www.edqm.eu/sites/default/files/medias/fichiers/Blood/good_pract....
    1. Slot E, Janssen MP, Marijt-van der Kreek T, Zaaijer HL, van de Laar TJ. Two decades of risk factors and transfusion-transmissible infections in Dutch blood donors. Transfusion. 2016 Jan;56((1)):203–214. - PubMed
    1. Polizzotto MN, Wood EM, Ingham H, Keller AJ, Australian Red Cross Blood Service Donor and Product Safety Team Reducing the risk of transfusion-transmissible viral infection through blood donor selection: the Australian experience 2000 through 2006. Transfusion. 2008 Jan;48((1)):55–63. - PubMed
    1. Preußel K, Offergeld R. Which infectious blood donors could be identified by the Donor History Questionnaire? − Comparison of blood donors infected with HIV or HCV with notified cases from general population in Germany. Transfus Med Hemother. 2018 Apr;45((2)):108–114. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Seed CR, Lucky TT, Waller D, Wand H, Lee JF, Wroth S, et al. Compliance with the current 12-month deferral for male-to-male sex in Australia. Vox Sang. 2014 Jan;106((1)):14–22. - PubMed