RESUMO
【Objective】 To explore the effect of inspection sheet on improving the quality of apheresis platelet, the satisfaction of blood donors and the cooperation ability of phlebotomists in the process of apheresis platelet collection. 【Methods】 Apheresis platelet donors from May to August 2021 in our center were selected as control group(without inspection sheet) and those from September to December 2021 were included in the observation group (with inspection sheet). The incidence of abnormal collection and the causes during collection process were compared between the two groups.And 100 first-time blood donors in each group were randomly selected for satisfaction survey. The questionnaire was made to investigate the phlebotomists’ recognition on the implementation of inspection sheet. 【Results】 The number of blood donors in the two groups were 6 673 and 6 559, with 111 and 49 abnormal cases, respectively. The total incidence of abnormal cases during blood collection before and after the implementation of inspection sheet was 1.66% and 0.75%, respectively, with the latter significantly lower than the former(P<0.001). The most common causes of abnormal conditions were repetitive puncture, followed by adverse reaction of blood donation, red blood cells contamination in platelet and fatty blood. The satisfaction of first-time blood donors was higher than before the implementation, and the recognition of phlebotomists on the inspection sheet was more than 90%. 【Conclusion】 The implementation of inspection sheet helps to regulate the collection process, strengthen the responsibility and service consciousness of phlebotomists, improve the satisfaction of blood donors, reduce the incidence of adverse events, and improve the quality of platelet products, which is worth popularizing in blood collection and supply institutions.
RESUMO
<p><b>Objective</b>To study the influence of povidone-iodine (PI) versus that of the benzethonium chloride wipe (BCW) on semen collection and semen quality of sperm donors undergoing penile skin disinfection and provide some evidence for the selection of disinfection methods for semen collection.</p><p><b>METHODS</b>We used PI from August to December 2015 and BCWs from January to July 2016 for penile skin disinfection before semen collection, with two samples from each donor, one collected with and the other without penis skin disinfection (the blank control group). After semen collection, we conducted a questionnaire investigation on the influence of the two disinfection methods on semen collection and compared the semen parameters between the two groups of sperm donors.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Totally, 185 sperm donors were included in this study, of whom 63 underwent penile skin disinfection with PI and the other 122 with BCWs before semen collection. Statistically significant differences were found between the PI and BCW groups in the adaptability to the disinfectant and rigid disinfection procedures (P <0.05), but not in the other items of the questionnaire (P >0.05). Compared with the sperm donors of the blank control group, those of the PI group showed statistically significant difference in the percentage of progressively motile sperm (PMS) (［63.02 ± 3.18］% vs ［61.45 ± 4.78］%, P<0.05), but not in the abstinence time (［4.97 ± 1.79］ vs ［4.7 ± 0.94］ d, P >0.05), semen volume (［4.11 ± 1.54］ vs ［4.15 ± 1.61］ ml, P >0.05), sperm concentration (［110 ± 29.6］ vs ［107.5 ± 31.79］ ×10⁶/ml, P >0.05), or total sperm count (［439.10 ± 170.13］ vs ［434.02 ± 186.91］ ×106/ejaculate, P >0.05), while those of the BCW group exhibited no remarkable difference in any of the above parameters (P >0.05). Among the samples with abnormal semen quality, significantly fewer were found with abnormal PMS in the BCW than in the PI group (1.64% ［2/122］ vs 9.68% ［6/62］, P <0.05). However, there were no significant differences between the PI and BCW groups in the abnormal semen volume, abnormal sperm concentration, or the rate of semen bacterial contamination (P >0.05).</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>Before semen collection from donors, penile skin disinfection with povidone-iodine may affect both the semen collection process and the quality of donor sperm, while the benzethonium chloride wipe can reduce the influence on the semen collection process and does not affect the semen parameters.</p>