How Do I Forestall Platelet Stockpiling? Experience from a Tertiary Care Center

Background:Among all the blood products, platelets had been reported to have a high rate of outdates due to its unpredictable demand and short shelf life of only 5 days. Researchers have applied techniques of management science and inventory theory to develop a model for inventory management. However, they failed to be implemented due to the variations in the demand and supply and complex computational models.Aims:To analyze the utilization pattern of platelet concentrates and discuss the method of optimal inventory management.Methods:We conducted a prospective observational study on platelet inventory practice at our center from January to December 2014. The number of units to be prepared is decided on daily basis by the transfusion medicine faculty or the resident. The utilization, wastage, expiry and the day’s cover are calculated for the study period. Future requirement is estimated based on the usage in the previous quarter, discard rare, average increase in usage and an additional 1% for managing disasters. Results:During this period a total of 6241 and 5706 units of platelet concentrates were prepared and issued respectively. The wastage rate was 5.1% and expiry rate was 3.5%. The average day’s cover of platelet units at our center was found to be 3 days using average monthly stock available and issued platelets. We observed that holding a stock of 45 units of platelets per day we had a cover for about 3 days for issue. Calculation of future requirement(6309) gave a high prediction when compared to the actual platelets prepared(6241).Conclusions:Understanding and regularly monitoring the inventory, setting up an optimum inventory level, follow of first in first out policy and to have an alternate management plan in times of shortage, like usage of apheresis products are some of the strategies which would benefit in best inventory practices.

Worldwide prevalence of carpal tunnel syndrome among dental health care personnel - A systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome (CTS) is one such common disorder among dental health care personnel caused due to the entrapment neuropathy of the median nerve in the carpal tunnel. We aimed to evaluate the pooled estimates of the CTS among dental healthcare personnel. Methods: We systematically reviewed the existing literature from six databases till January 1st, 2022. Studies reported in English along with the prevalence of CTS or where prevalence could be calculated were included. Independent screening of title and abstracts, and the full text was done by two examiners. Information collected was authors, year of publication, geographic location, type of dental healthcare personnel, sample size, distribution of age, sex, CTS, method of diagnosis, and risk of bias. The random effect model was used to estimate the pooled estimates. Results: Thirty-seven studies yielded 38 estimates. A total of 17,152 dental health care personnel were included of which 2717 had CTS. The overall pooled prevalence of CTS among the included studies was 15%, with a high heterogeneity. Meta-analysis showed no significant difference in the pooled estimates of CTS between male and female dental healthcare personnel (OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.52 -1.02; I2= 69.71). The pooled estimates among the dentist and dental auxiliaries were 20% and 10%, respectively. The pooled prevalence of CTS with self-reported measures, clinical examination and NCS were 21%, 13% and 8% respectively. Meta-regression showed that the prevalence estimates were significantly associated with publication year (coefficient: 0.006; 95% CI= 0.002-0.01). Conclusion: One out of seven dental health care personnel may be affected by CTS. No significant difference was seen in the prevalence of CTS between male and female dental healthcare personnel

Real eyes realizes real lies: A case report and review of nuisance antibodies in immunohematology

Detection of nonspecific antibodies unrelated to blood group antigen that causes nuisance in pretransfusion testing is a rare event. Their interpretation is often made only after the exclusion of all possible clinically significant antibodies and results in the unnecessary expenditure of reagents and human resources. We report one such nuisance antibody detected in an antenatal female that showed pan reaction with antibody screening and identification panel red cells including auto control but was compatible with group-specific donor units. Direct antiglobulin test was positive with no hematological evidence of bleeding. Repeat antibody screening test performed after washing the panel red cells and use of panel cells from different manufacturer showed negative reaction raising the suspicion of antibody specificity against chemical constituents in suspension medium of panel cells. Interpretation of nonspecific antibodies as to what they really are demands extensive immunohematological work-up and causes a delay in issue of blood components to the recipient

Implication of deferral pattern on the donor pool: Study at a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background and Objectives: Donor screening process is one of the most important steps in protecting the safety of blood supply. Donors who do not meet specified criteria are deferred either temporarily or permanently. These criteria are designed to protect both donors and patient safety. Due to the varied rates and reasons for deferrals in the existing literature, we aimed to evaluate the patterns and prevalence of deferrals in our institution. Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was conducted at a Tertiary Care Hospital, Karnataka, Southern India, to evaluate the various reasons for blood donor deferral from January 2011 to January 2014. Demographic data of blood donors was obtained through the blood bank database and secondary measures such as the type of deferral (permanent/temporary, pathogenic/nonpathogenic, and harmful to donor/recipient) were assessed. Results: A total of 54,653 subjects presented to our blood bank during this period out of which 2935 (5.6%) were deferred. The deferral to donor percentage was higher in females (36.54%) than males (3.64%). Low hemoglobin was the major deferral criterion seen in our participants (48.1%) followed by hypertension (16.4%), underweight (8.9%). Low pulse rate and fasting donor were the least prevalent reasons. A total of 36.8% of reasons for deferral were harmful to donors, 88.2% were nonpathogenic, and 98.1% were temporary causes. Conclusion: Variations in donor deferral may be attributed to different donor selection criteria in different regions and centers. Hence, it is important to know the common causes of donor deferral in a region so that measures may be taken to improve the donor pool

Prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders among dental healthcare providers: A systematic review and meta-analysis [version 2; peer review: 2 approved]

Background: Work-related musculoskeletal disorders (MSD) are common in dentistry due to the prolonged static work involved during patient care, making dental health care personnel vulnerable to musculoskeletal complaints. We aimed to pool the prevalence estimates of MSD among various dental healthcare providers, including dentists, dental students, dental hygienists, and auxiliaries. Methods: A systematic search of five databases was performed (Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source). The studies that reported the prevalence of MSD among dental healthcare workers and those written in English were selected. Screening and data extraction were performed by two review authors independently. Discrepencies were resolved by another review author. Risk of bias assessment was done using a nine-item questionnaire developed by Hoy et al. Pooled estimates were calculated using meta-analysis of proportions (random effects model). Results: Among the 3090 publications screened, 234 publications were included for full-text screening. Meta-analysis was performed for 89 estimates from 88 publications. Females showed significantly higher prevalence [OR = 1.42 (95% CI = 1.09–1.84); I2 = 66.02; N = 32]. The analysis yielded a pooled estimate of 78.4% (95% CI = 74.8–82). The meta-regression showed similar prevalence over the years (Coefficient: 0.001; P-value: 0.762). Conclusions: A high prevalence of MSD was noted among dental healthcare providers, with about seven out of ten having experienced MSD in the past. This emphasizes the need for awareness and adoption of appropriate ergonomic postures by dental healthcare providers from early in their careers to minimize work-related MSD