| |
AABB October 2001 Presentations Summary
Listed at the bottom of this page are two AABB Quality Donor System™
(QDS) annual meeting presentations. One is a poster presentation
by L Rogenski, P Cumming and L Katz entitled “Audio-Video Computer
Assisted Self Interview (AV-CASI) of Blood Donors.” The presentation
describes implementation of the Mississippi Valley Quality Donor
System™ (MVQDS or QDS) in the spring and summer of 2001 and
initial studies assessing outcome performance. The second by C.
Bianco is an abstract of his presentation at the new technology
session and expands on donor satisfaction data presented in the
Rogenski work. A third presentation descriptive of QDS was made by
Charles Mooney of the Oklahoma Blood Institute who has graciously
provided his slides. The work is not included here because, after
expert consultation, it was concluded that audience interest is in
performance data, not additional system descriptions.
Research reported here is partially supported by a Small Business
Innovation Research Phase II grant (HL61111) from the National Heart
Lung & Blood Institute. Combined key points from the two presentations
follow.
- QDS is a computerized way of asking blood donors the AABB Uniform
Donor History Questions using a touch screen with on-screen text
and pictures plus earphone audio.
- Unacceptable donor responses are highlighted, reviewed with
a staff member, and annotated or amended as needed.
- The donor form cannot be printed until all aberrant responses
have been documented and all questions answered.
- Validation was performed to 100% accuracy and staff trained
using 5 mock interview scenarios.
- Donor satisfaction surveys established that across 7 measures,
at minimum among those donors showing preference for one system
or the other, donors preferred QDS to staff interviews by a factor
of 4. Satisfaction/preference measures included likelihood of
donating again, privacy, clarity, time, understanding, and truthfulness.
- QDS reduces staff errors/omissions by >60% compared to verbal
screening with a two sided probability = 0.0006.
- Staff user surveys showed that a majority of staff prefer QDS
except on two measures: time and cost. Staff are correct that
donor time is longer with QDS; however, donors prefer QDS anyway.
Staff are probably incorrect that QDS costs more, since staff
fail to take account of the value of released staff time. Cost
studies are being conducted, but are not as yet complete.
- Conclusions: No donors have refused to use QDS and they find
QDS more private; staff are extremely satisfied with QDS; errors
and omissions due to incomplete donor forms have decreased dramatically
(>60%); and staff time is reduced by 3 minutes per donor. Data
collection is underway examining other performance measures such
as trends in post donation information and positive responses
to deferrable risk questions.
Click here to view "Audio-Video Computer
Assisted Self Interview (AV-CASI) of Blood Donors."
Click here to view "Impact of Current
Screening Practices."
|
|
