It is widely accepted that the use of Copper Sulfate for screening potential blood donors is an out of date and inferior method compared to newer automated methodologies. Continued use of Copper Sulfate, while seemingly inexpensive, has significant associated costs which aren’t always calculated correctly when evaluating a change to a different technology. The subjective nature of Copper Sulfate also prevents a blood bank from accurately measuring true Hb deferral rates and can pose a public health risk to the donor population.
Dr. Carden’s presentation will focus on two important areas to consider. Firstly, what has been the experience of blood centers in the US who switched from Copper Sulfate to an objective method.
His paper, “Reducing Variability in Donor Hemoglobin Screening Through Automation”, was instrumental in helping Blood Centers justify the move to an automated technology. Supporting data will be provided and examined.
Secondly, the presentation will discuss all the factors that need to be considered in making a change. Comparing the price per test of Copper Sulfate v. a subjective method does not tell the whole story. Other associated costs (soft costs/hidden costs) must also be accounted for. Dr. Carden will help understand these costs and how they should be factored into making a decision.
- Experience from blood centers in the US who switched from copper Sulfate to an objective method
- Comparing the price per test of copper sulfate versus a subjective method does not tell the whole story – understand all factors, including price per test, when making a change
- The subjective nature of Copper Sulfate may prevent a blood bank from accurately measuring true Hb deferral rates and can pose a public health risk to the donor population