Background and Objectives The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has impacted blood systems worldwide. Challenges included maintaining blood supplies and initiating the collection and use of COVID‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP). Sharing information on the challenges can help improve blood collection and utilization. Materials and Methods A survey questionnaire was distributed to International Society of Blood Transfusion members in 95 countries. We recorded respondents' demographic information, impacts on the blood supply, CCP collection and use, transfusion demands and operational challenges. Results Eighty‐two responses from 42 countries, including 24 low‐ and middle‐income countries, were analysed. Participants worked in national (26.8%) and regional (26.8%) blood establishments and hospital‐based (42.7%) institutions. CCP collection and transfusion were reported by 63% and 36.6% of respondents, respectively. Decreases in blood donations occurred in 70.6% of collecting facilities. Despite safety measures and recruitment strategies, donor fear and refusal of institutions to host blood drives were major contributing factors. Almost half of respondents working at transfusion medicine services were from large hospitals with over 10,000 red cell transfusions per year, and 76.8% of those hospitals experienced blood shortages. Practices varied in accepting donors for blood or CCP donations after a history of COVID‐19 infection, CCP transfusion, or vaccination. Operational challenges included loss of staff, increased workloads and delays in reagent supplies. Almost half of the institutions modified their disaster plans during the pandemic. Conclusion The challenges faced by blood systems during the COVID‐19 pandemic highlight the need for guidance, harmonization, and strengthening of the preparedness and the capacity of blood systems against future infectious threats.

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.

BACKGROUND:Blood transfusion chain can be divided into three phases: preanalytical (patient bedside), analytical (steps done at transfusion services), and postanalytical (bedside). Majority (~70%) of events due to blood transfusion have been attributed to errors in bedside blood administration practices. Survey of bedside transfusion practices (pre-analytical and post analytical phase) was done to assess awareness and compliance to guidelines regarding requisition and administration of blood components.MATERIALS AND METHODS:Interview-based questionnaire of ward staff and observational survey of actual transfusion of blood components in total 26 wards of the institute was carried out during November–December 2013. All the collected data were coded (to maintain confidentiality) and analyzed using SPSS (v 20). For analysis, wards were divided into three categories: medical, surgical, and others (including all intensive care units).RESULTS:A total of 104 (33 resident doctors and 71 nursing) staff members were interviewed and observational survey could be conducted in 25 wards during the study period. In the preanalytical phase, major issues were as follows: lack of awareness for institute guidelines (80.6% not aware), improper sampling practices (67.3%), and prescription related (56.7%). In the postanalytical phase, major issues were found to be lack of consent for blood transfusion (72%), improper warming of blood component (~80%), and problems in storage and discarding of blood units.CONCLUSION:There is need to create awareness about policies and guidelines of bed side transfusion among the ward staff. Regular audits are necessary for compliance to guidelines among clinical staff.

Introduction Recruitment of Covid‐19 convalescent plasma (CCP) donors may present as a challenge due to inexperience and differences in donor profile as compared to whole blood donation. Present study highlights the deterrents to recruiting CCP donors at a hospital based blood centre. Materials and methods Potential CCP donors were contacted individually by telephone and a group approach through camp organisers from May to July 2020. Recruitment challenges were noted and deferrals of these recruited donors during screening and medical examination was obtained and analysed. Results Total 1165 potential CCP donors were contacted. Around 47% donors were lost due to challenges related to information storage and retrieval. Fear of health, family pressure, and fear of a new procedure were major reason (27.2%) for unwillingness to donate. The main reasons for deferral among potential donors were multiparity (38%) and being overage/underage (31.6%). Finally, 468 donors were recruited including 408 by individual approach and 60 by a group approach. From these absence of detectable COVID‐19 antibodies were found in 15.4%. Few donors (9.0%) were deferred as they had not completed 28 days post recovery. Conclusion The process of CCP donor recruitment differs from that of whole blood donation and requires an individualised approach with involvement of clinicians in the initial phases of the pandemic. A group approach targeting specific organisations could be adopted for a successful CCP collection program. There is a need to relook into some aspects of donor selection such as consideration of multiparous female donors and overage/underage donors after reviewing scientific evidence.