Ensuring availability of safe blood products through recruitment of voluntary, nonremunerated, blood donors (VNRDs) and prevention of transfusion-transmissible infections (TTIs), including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV), and syphilis, is important for public health (1,2). During 2004–2016, the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) provided approximately $468 million in financial support and technical assistance* to 14 sub-Saharan African countries† with high HIV prevalence to strengthen national blood transfusion services (NBTSs)§ and improve blood safety and availability. CDC analyzed these countries’ 2014–2016 blood safety surveillance data to update previous reports (1,2) and summarize achievements and programmatic gaps as some NBTSs begin to transition funding and technical support from PEPFAR to local ministries of health (MOHs) (2,3). Despite a 60% increase in blood supply since 2004 and steady declines in HIV prevalence (to <1% among blood donors in seven of the 14 countries), HIV prevalence among blood donors still remains higher than that recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) (4). PEPFAR support has contributed to significant reductions in HIV prevalence among blood donors in the majority of PEPFAR-supported countries, and linking donors who screen HIV-positive to confirmatory testing and indicated treatment, as well as further reducing TTIs, remains a public health priority (5).

No abstract

Objective While the Global Database on Blood Safety (GDBS) helps to monitor the status of adequate and safe blood availability, its presence alone does not serve as a solution to existing challenges. The objective of this evaluation was to determine the GDBS usefulness in improving the availability of adequate safe blood and its ability to function as a surveillance system. Methods The GDBS was evaluated using methods set out by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Guidelines for assessing surveillance systems. Six recommended tasks were used to evaluate if the GDBS met the requirements of a surveillance system in a public health context. Results The majority of stakeholders engaged with GDBS found it was unique and useful. The GDBS answered all six questions essential for determining a blood safety surveillance system’s usefulness. The GDBS fully met the needs to six of the eleven attributes used for evaluating the usefulness of a surveillance system. Conclusion The GDBS is a unique global activity that provides vital data on safety of blood transfusion services across countries and regions. However, aspects of the GDBS such as timeliness of reporting and improvement of WHO Member States national blood information systems could enhance its effectiveness and potential to serve as a global surveillance system for blood safety.

Background and Objectives: The accreditation of blood services promotes continuous quality improvement in blood and transfusion services. The Africa Society for Blood Transfusion (AfSBT) conducted 20 baseline assessments of National Blood Transfusion Services (NBTS) or blood banks as part of the Step-Wise Accreditation Programme (SWAP) in 10 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries from 2016 to 2018. This paper aims to elucidate the process and findings of the baseline assessments.Materials and Methods: This is a descriptive study of 20 baseline assessments of NBTS. Eleven sections of the AfSBT assessment were reviewed, and 48 out of 68 standards and 356 out of 466 criteria were assessed. Each standard was assigned a value of 1 if it was fully achieved, 0.5 if partially achieved and 0 if not achieved. We defined average section scores >75% as having 'met AfSBT Standards', ≤25% as not meeting standards, 26%-50% as needs major improvement, and 51%-75% as needs some improvement and >75% as meets standards.Results: The AfSBT SWAP standards were met in 4 out of the 11 sections: donor management, blood collection, component production and compatibility testing.Three sections were determined to need some improvement (quality system; handling, transport and storage and testing of donated blood), and three sections were determined to need major improvement (haemovigilance, blood administration and national blood service accreditation). One section (receipt, ordering, and issuing of blood) did not meet standards. Conclusion:Despite improvements in the quality of blood services in SSA over the past two decades, governments may consider the importance of prioritizing investments in NBTS, ensuring these institutions meet international accreditation standards that are aligned with safe blood transfusion services.