OBJECTIVE: This study examined the frequency with which allogeneic, volunteer blood donors who had been deferred from donation at one blood collection facility donated, or attempted to donate, at a second blood collection facility. METHODS: The blood donor computer files of two local blood collection facilities were-combined and matched donors on the donor deferral registry of each blood collection facility were identified. RESULTS: Of 26,300 donors in the hospital-based blood bank file, 6732 (25.6%) were matched to the community blood center donor file (active donor base approximately 275,000). Matched donors on the donor deferral registry at each blood collection facility numbered 427 (6.3% of total matched donors). A total of 103 evaluable donors (1.5% of total, or 24.1% of deferred, matched donors) had been deferred at one blood collection facility and then later donated, or attempted donation, at the other blood collection facility. Of these 103, 51 were allogeneic donors who had been notified of their deferral status and should not have subsequently attempted blood donation. Thirty-two donors on the donor deferral registry of one blood collection facility made donations at the second blood collection facility which entered the general blood inventory. CONCLUSION: Shared donor deferral registries may be valuable at the local or regional level to prevent deferred blood donors from donating at other blood collection facilities. Whether or not a national donor deferral registry would be efficacious remains to be proven and deserves further study.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the frequency with which allogeneic, volunteer blood donors who had been deferred from donation at one blood collection facility donated, or attempted to donate, at a second blood collection facility. METHODS: The blood donor computer files of two local blood collection facilities were-combined and matched donors on the donor deferral registry of each blood collection facility were identified. RESULTS: Of 26,300 donors in the hospital-based blood bank file, 6732 (25.6%) were matched to the community blood center donor file (active donor base approximately 275,000). Matched donors on the donor deferral registry at each blood collection facility numbered 427 (6.3% of total matched donors). A total of 103 evaluable donors (1.5% of total, or 24.1% of deferred, matched donors) had been deferred at one blood collection facility and then later donated, or attempted donation, at the other blood collection facility. Of these 103, 51 were allogeneic donors who had been notified of their deferral status and should not have subsequently attempted blood donation. Thirty-two donors on the donor deferral registry of one blood collection facility made donations at the second blood collection facility which entered the general blood inventory. CONCLUSION: Shared donor deferral registries may be valuable at the local or regional level to prevent deferred blood donors from donating at other blood collection facilities. Whether or not a national donor deferral registry would be efficacious remains to be proven and deserves further study.