Donor and non-donor perspectives on receiving information from routine genomic testing of donor blood.

BACKGROUND: Genomic testing is already used by blood collection agencies (BCAs) to identify rare blood types and ensure the best possible matching of blood. With ongoing technological developments, broader applications, such as the identification of genetic markers relevant to blood donor health, will become feasible. However, the perspectives of blood donors (and potential blood donors) on routine genomic testing of donor blood are under-researched. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Eight online Focus Groups were conducted: four with donors and four with non-donors. Participants were presented with three hypothetical scenarios about the current and possible future applications of genomic testing: Performing rare blood type testing; identifying donors with genetic markers associated with iron metabolism; and identifying donors with genetic markers associated with bowel cancer. RESULTS: Testing to identify rare blood types was perceived to be an appropriate application for the BCA to undertake, while identifying markers associated with iron metabolism and cancer genetic markers were only partially supported. Participants raised concerns about the boundaries of acceptable testing and the implications of testing for privacy, data security, and health insurance. Perspectives of donors and non-donors on all scenarios were similar. DISCUSSION: The principles of who benefits from genomic testing and the perceived role of BCAs were key in shaping participants' perspectives. Participants generally agreed that testing should be directly related to blood donation or be of benefit to the recipient or donor. Findings indicate that consent and communication are key to the acceptability of current and expanded genomic testing.

Quality audit of the guidelines for the use of RhD immunoglobulin in obstetrics: Are we getting it right?

BACKGROUND: Administration of RhD immunoglobulin (Ig) is important for RhD negative women throughout pregnancy and postnatally to prevent alloimmunisation and haemolytic disease of the fetus and newborn in subsequent pregnancies. AIMS: The aim of this audit was to understand compliance with the Australian guidelines on RhD Ig prophylaxis in pregnancy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a retrospective audit of RhD negative pregnant women in Victoria, Northern Territory, Australian Capital Territory and Tasmania at maternity services of level 2 or higher care, between July 2017 and June 2018. Medical records were reviewed to identify how many RhD negative women received care compliant with the guidelines covering antibody testing, consent, administration of RhD Ig, and feto-maternal haemorrhage (FMH) quantification. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Analysis included 939 RhD negative women from 43 health services. Compliance with postnatal RhD Ig was high (98%); however, other practice was poor. Documented consent was obtained and recorded for 585 women (62%). Only 76% of eligible women received RhD Ig at the appropriate dose and time (28 and 34 weeks gestation). Similarly, management of potentially sensitising events was suboptimal with 78% receiving RhD Ig when recommended by guidelines. The results of our audit indicate a need for practice improvement across all aspects of care for women who need to receive RhD Ig. A major focus should be not just educating clinical staff, but also educating women to understand the importance of RhD Ig and the potential impact on subsequent pregnancies in order to improve guideline adherence and reduce risk.