(P-BB-66) Recruiting First Time Donors into Automated Double Red Cell Collections: A Revenue Diversification & Inventory Management Strategy From a Community Blood Center

Background/Case Studies: At the baseline, per standard operating procedures (SOP) at our community blood center double red-blood-cell (dRBC) apheresis has been performed only on donors with known blood types. First time donors (FTD) were allocated as default to be whole blood (WB) donors. The rationale for this practice was to avoid overcollection of group AB red blood cells (RBC) units. With ever-increasing demand for RBC and inventory shortages, we re-evaluated our strategy allowing recruiting FTDs into automated dRBC. This study assesses net change in RBC collections, estimated revenue changes and effect on donor adverse reactions with this strategy.

Study

Design/Methods: A revision to SOP allowing recruiting FTDs into automated dRBC collections if donors met all other criteria was made. Using DOMO data visualization tool, a retrospective review of deidentified data recording attributes of FTD dRBC attempting to donate for 6 months duration between February 22, and August 22, 2022 was completed. Donor suitability, success of donation, blood types of collected units and donor adverse reactions were reviewed.

Results/Findings: Between the 6 months of study duration, 400 potential FTDs were assessed for suitability for dRBC apheresis. Of these, 375 (93.8%) met all donation criteria. From the 375 dRBC apheresis procedures performed, 352 (93.8%) procedures resulting in any RBC product(s) and 23 (6.2%) were failed procedures with no product collected. A total of 677 RBC units were successfully collected. Of these, 325 procedures successfully resulted in two RBCs collections and 27 (6.9%) were single-unit recoveries, resulting in only one viable RBC unit.

Overall, more O pos (47.2% vs 39.9%) and O neg (9.0% vs 7.0%) were collected from FTD DRBC donors than from FTD WB donors. Overall, less AB pos (1.5% vs 3.6%) and AB neg (0.3% vs 0.7%) were collected from FTD dRBC donors than from FTD WB donors (Table 1). Rates of donor reactions and incidents for FTD-dRBC donors were comparable to FTD-WB donors.

Revenue from the 375 procedures (677 units of RBCs) was nearly 150% of the predicted revenue from 375 completed whole blood procedures (inclusive of predicted revenue from plasma, RBC’s and WBD derived platelets). Average cost of donor testing per unit of RBC collected by dRBC procedures was substantially less (~55% lower) per unit than from WB.

Conclusions: In just over six months, donor services collected an additional 302 RBC products from FTDs who would have otherwise donated only one unit of WB. Concerns about over collecting AB RBCs were unfounded as only six additional AB red cells were collected than those predicted had all FTDs been WB donors.

Based on this revenue diversification & inventory management strategy, donor services at our community-based blood center will continue recruiting FTDs into automated dRBC collection while monitoring our collection of recovered plasma to ensure that we will meet our commitments.

Importance of research: This study explores recruiting first time donors into automated double red cell collections as a revenue diversification & inventory management strategy at a community blood center. Donor services collected an additional 300 RBC products from FTDs who would have otherwise donated only one unit of WB in 6 months duration. Concerns about over collecting AB RBCs were unfounded as comparable number of AB red cells were collected than those predicted had all FTDs been WB donors.