A new study found that the top three blood donation blood banks in the United States performed much better than the others on several important indicators of safety.
The study, published in the journal Critical Care Medicine, found that blood donation program leaders performed about twice as well on measures of safety and effectiveness as other top providers in a number of key metrics.
The researchers also found that providers of blood donations from the most affluent backgrounds performed better than those with low incomes.
“These findings are important because the risk of transmission of HIV-1 infection is significantly lower among people who have donated blood in the past and are currently donating blood, compared to those who have not,” said lead author Dr. John O’Brien, a research associate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine.
“This research demonstrates that blood donors can benefit from receiving a blood donation if they are in the most advantaged socioeconomic group in the community, compared with those who are in lower income, poorer or minority communities.”
This could help improve the quality of blood donated and reduce the risk for infection.
“The researchers looked at the performance of the blood banks across the United State, which provides more than 100 million Americans with blood.
They found that two of the three largest blood banks, United Blood Services (USBS) and American Red Cross, performed well.”
O’Brien and his colleagues used data from more than 16 million donors who had donated blood between 2005 and 2014 to identify a number that represented the most prevalent socio-economic group. “
However, we also found significant differences among the top four blood banks.”
O’Brien and his colleagues used data from more than 16 million donors who had donated blood between 2005 and 2014 to identify a number that represented the most prevalent socio-economic group.
They then examined how blood donations performed on the measures of health and safety.
“The main finding from this study is that there is a significant difference in the performance across blood banks on several key measures of blood safety and efficacy,” O’tConnor said in a statement.
“The largest difference in safety performance among blood banks is found in those based in the Northeast and Midwest, and this difference was especially pronounced for those based primarily in New York City.
These findings are of particular interest because there are a number large blood donation organizations in New England and in the Midwest, which are based on socio-economically diverse backgrounds.
These blood donation communities are particularly vulnerable to the introduction of novel viruses and infections.”
The largest disparity in safety and quality was found among the largest blood donation centers in New Orleans and San Antonio, Texas.
These blood donation hubs have long been known to perform well on safety measures, with an average of nearly 90 percent of donations making it through the screening process, and 95 percent of donors receiving a transfusion within 48 hours of donating.
But the researchers found that, over time, this number began to decline and that the number of blood donors being screened declined by more than 70 percent.
The authors suggest that these findings can be attributed to several factors, including improved screening and improved medical care.
“We find that the blood donation system is undergoing a renaissance, with the blood supply becoming more accessible and available to more people,” O’dConnor said, adding that it will take time for these trends to translate to improved safety.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the United Nations Children’s Fund estimates that the total annual cost of HIV infection for the United Kingdom alone is estimated to be $4.2 billion, with about 1.6 million people living with HIV.