Introduction Numerous concerns regarding maintenance of blood inventory have been raised after SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic outbreak. These concerns were based on the experience of blood centres in previous pandemics where shortage of blood components was reported. The present study had tried to understand the impact of SARS‐CoV‐2 pandemic on blood collection and demand as well as the impact of disaster planning in maintaining an adequate inventory. Methods Data related to blood supply and demand were collected retrospectively using blood bank management software for pre‐COVID‐19 and COVID‐19 time period and compared. Strategies adopted and effects of changes in existing disaster plans to maintain an adequate inventory were studied. Results A drastic fall in the red cell inventory was observed as compared to pre‐COVID‐19 time period was observed due to disproportionate decrease in blood collection (1/6 to 1/9 of the previous collection) and demand (1/2 of the previous demand). The buffer stock fell gradually over a period of three weeks with cancellation of planned blood donation drives. A buffer stock equivalent to 2‐week inventory led to adequate inventory in the initial lockdown periods. Similar fall was observed in the platelet inventory with reduction in the blood collection but almost a proportionate reduction in the platelet demand led to adequate inventory. No increase in wastage was observed for both red cells and platelets during this period. Discussion A buffer stock of blood and blood components, strict adherence to the transfusion triggers, good coordination with the clinical staff and a prospective review of blood transfusion requests to ensure rational blood transfusion were some of the steps which helped us to successfully maintain transfusion requirements in the initial phases of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Use of first‐in‐first‐out policy prevented any wastage due to outdating of blood.

Introduction SARS-Coronavirus-2 pandemic has adversely affected blood supply as potential blood donors were afraid of acquiring infection in hospital settings. We aimed to compare COVID-19 seroprevalence among asymptomatic blood donors from healthcare and non-healthcare setting to analyse the difference in exposure level of each group as well as the risk of acquiring infection during the process of blood donation. Material and Methods Analysis of whole blood donors tested for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies was carried out after categorizing them into healthcare workers (HCW) and non-healthcare workers (NHCW). NHCW were further categorized into residents of containment and non-containment zones and seroprevalence analyzed. Seroprevalence among different ABO blood groups was also analyzed. Results 1191 blood donors were tested for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies with 9.5% seropositivity. Significantly lower seropositivity of 3.2% (p < 0.001) was observed among HCW as compared to 10.9% seropositivity in NHCW. Among NHCW no difference in seropositivity was observed based on residence in containment or non-containment zone. Significantly higher (p = 0.012) seroprevalence was observed among A blood group donors (12.5%) as compared to O blood group donors (6.8%). Conclusion Results suggests that a blood donor, in a hospital setting is less likely to be exposed to COVID-19 disease than when participating in activities of daily living. It is postulated that the lower seroprevalence among HCW as compared to NHCW reflects differences in knowledge and practice of preventive measures among these groups. The findings should instil confidence among blood donors and motivate them to donate blood without fear.