کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
2101805 | 1546256 | 2016 | 6 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
![عکس صفحه اول مقاله: European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Centers with FACT-JACIE Accreditation Have Significantly Better Compliance with Related Donor Care Standards European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation Centers with FACT-JACIE Accreditation Have Significantly Better Compliance with Related Donor Care Standards](/preview/png/2101805.png)
• Related donor care in accredited centers is closer to international recommendations.
• Despite improvements over time, current practice can place undue pressure on donors.
• In areas lacking regulatory guidance, practice in all centers differs from UD standards.
• Long-term follow-up of related donors is becoming more prevalent.
Previous studies have identified healthcare practices that may place undue pressure on related donors (RDs) of hematopoietic cell products and an increase in serious adverse events associated with morbidities in this population. As a result, specific requirements to safeguard RD health have been introduced to Foundation for the Accreditation of Cellular Therapy/The Joint Accreditation Committee ISCT and EBMT (FACT-JACIE) Standards, but the impact of accreditation on RD care has not previously been evaluated. A survey of transplant program directors of European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation member centers was conducted by the Donor Health and Safety Working Committee of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research to test the hypothesis that RD care in FACT-JACIE accredited centers is more closely aligned with international consensus donor care recommendations than RD care delivered in centers without accreditation. Responses were received from 39% of 304 centers. Our results show that practice in accredited centers was much closer to recommended standards as compared with nonaccredited centers. Specifically, a higher percentage of accredited centers use eligibility criteria to assess RDs (93% versus 78%; P = .02), and a lower percentage have a single physician simultaneously responsible for an RD and their recipient (14% versus 35%; P = .008). In contrast, where regulatory standards do not exist, both accredited and nonaccredited centers fell short of accepted best practice. These results raise concerns that despite improvements in care, current practice can place undue pressure on donors and may increase the risk of donation-associated adverse events. We recommend measures to address these issues through enhancement of regulatory standards as well as national initiatives to standardize RD care.
Journal: - Volume 22, Issue 3, March 2016, Pages 514–519