I'm so low risk - WTF with the secrecy?

I'm hearin ya Boomer~

I've seen a bit of this myself. I used to donate fairly often (every 3 or 4 months) and since I'm an O- (Universial donor) they were always pretty happy to take what they could get.

I haven't been able to donate for the last 9 years and hopefully they'll let me again in a few so I can get back to it but the whole process has gotten a lot less "friendly" than it used to be.

My type is AB+ . . . they never turn me away. I have given so much blood since 1970, that my veins in the pit of my arms are scarred. Most phlebotomists have a lot of trouble doing it. So, i only donate if there is a call out for my type.

I do agree, Osso, that keeping the blood supply safe is vital.

No, I don't take Mo to my physicals but I do take him to his own. I think donating blood is very important and I think taking him sets an example of this being a way of life - something that is common.

Plus, really, if he can't go I can't go.

Period.

For now, anyway.

When he starts school I'm sure I will be able to go without him but until then, he goes.

People need every chance to opt out they can get. They can be frozen in place in the first instance.

I might have been just as pissed or more so than you. Still, screening is important and, while public feelings are surely important for future donations, the screening is the thing.

I'll back off, I never did blood bank, I was mostly in immunology research; I am suggesting there may be a range of views to listen to. I include in those the possibility that the person you dealt with was a jerk, but wait before declaiming, as the blood bank folk may have their reasons.

Is it JB here who has extensive blood bank experience?

I know what you mean about the wait, Roger. I always make an appointment but it appears to be meaningless. I factor in about an hour and a half for the session but there have been a few times that I've walked in the door, looked at the line and told them I'd try back next week (they are at the church a few blocks from my house every Monday).

When you start thinking its going to take three hours out of your day you really start to wonder...

You don't need to back off at all, Osso! I appreciate your perspective - it has given me a lot to think about.

Mrs. Gundy just seemed so uptight. I really don't see the harm of Mo overhearing me answer those questions. Okay, he might have later had questions of his own but I would have been the one they were directed to and I think I'm capable of answering them.

Most of the questions deal with pretty simple stuff so I'm thinking it was just the sex questions that had Mrs. Gundy all wound up. I certainly don't discuss my sex life with Mo but I do think that if sex is treated like a dirty secret, even in health related environments, that we send the wrong message.

< Gus sits on his briefcase in Bora Bora. Checks his watch. >

I doubt it has anything to do with the interviewer, but most likely a rule put in place to protect your privacy and to hopefully get truthful answers. I know when I went to the hospital to give birth, they warned us that your husband could go anywhere you were except for about 10 minutes. During those 10 minutes, they ask a series of questions - the majority revolving around whether you are in an abusive situation. There concern is you would not tell the truth or at least be more likely to admit that you were in an abusive situation if the abuser were not there. Even a doctor who knows you and your family well is not immune from enforcing this. It is just a rule they put in place and there are no exceptions. Sounds like your situation. Even knowing you are low risk, they need to have the same rules in place for all.

Ummmm.

You were supposed to send me a ticket.

If you want me to be an IV drug using, world traveling prostitute remember that payment is expected before service is rendered.

This is the part that bothers me. Whatever happened to privacy?

Boomer, I just checked my wallet -- nothing. Checked my pockets and came up with sixty five cents.

What will that get me?

It doesn't appear that there really is a rule about that though, Linkat.

As Phoenix brings up -- if privacy leads to more truthful answers why don't they keep using the old circle the anwser method?

I'm assuming that the written form was available in several languages too. That alone would seem to provide for more accurate answers.

The new protocol seems pretty stupid. It seems to create more problems than it solves.

Sixty five cents ain't much gus but I suppose I could give you the honor of giving me a pedicure for that.

Hmmmm. I'll pass. A vendor just walked by with a sixty five cent ice cream cone.

Maybe another time.

Beats the flock out of me boomerang. New protocol usually does seem to waste time. I wonder if enough complaints occur if they change the protocol back. Another thought, maybe they had enough illiterate people come in, that they thought it would be easier just to read the questions or maybe several people did not understand the questions (although they are pretty straight forward).

They actually explained the why before we went to the hospital. Kind of defeated the purpose since if my husband was an abuser he could have threatened right after the doctor warned us about the questions.

Hey Boomer,

From what I've been able to pick up from your posts, it seems like the collection center previously had a computerized process but, because of some additional questions they need to ask, they've scraped the computer program and now ask all of the questions orally. They record your answers on a paper form and then you sign the donation record at the end, is that correct?

The link that fishin' provided is the guidance for streamlining self-administered health histories. It seems that your facility, for whatever reason, has decided to scrap SAHH in favor of oral interviews. I'm not sure why they made that choice, but oral interviews are allowed and have always been used in some facilities.

from the FDA's Compliance Program Inspector's Manual


Source: http://www.fda.gov/cber/cpg/7342001bld.htm#attB

The only thing I can think of is that, in this instance, the health history nurse determined that Mo's presence would violate the requirement for confidentiality and insisted that you participate in the oral interview alone. If I had to guess about what has happened, I'd venture that the facility has temporarily suspended SAHH while their programs are updated to include the new questions and during the interim they are doing full oral interviews which require strict confidentiality. She was correct in that the FDA would not want Mo to be present for the oral interview. What I don't understand is why they are doing them in the first place.

edited to correct fishin's name.

It wasn't annoying enough to keep me from donating in the future, even if they do keep the new rules.

In the past they printed out a little sheet with all of my personal information printed at the top and a questionaire at the bottom. They would verify the my info and send me off to fill out the form. When I returned it they would have me sign it, give me the stickers and step out while I attached them to the right spots.

I was wondering if perhaps the new oral thing was temporary. As a regular donor I was very familiar with the questionaire and would really just skim it to see if anything had changed.

Maybe they know this about us.

Maybe they wanted to be sure we weren't skimming.

I suppose that I still have a hard time thinking of a four year old as someone who would compromise my confidentiality.

We finally compromised by placing a chair out of earshot but within eyeshot. Mo was fidgety because he really loves that medical part and he didn't want to miss it.

We will be able to deal with it but it will take a bit more patience than the examinor had yesterday.
She was so flustered and created such a commotion that Mo was naturally more curious than he might normally had been.

The examiner's suggestion that we leave Mo in the care of one of the volunteers was kind of wierd. I'm not going to leave Mo in a strange place in the company of strangers - no matter how lovely and doting they are towards Mo, most of them are elderly and would be no match against Tugboat Mo. Plus, Mo has a tendency to get a little angsty.

Thank you for the information, J_B.

I think simply knowing the new protocol will make our next visit much smoother. When I have a chance to practice new situations with Mo before we encounter them things are nicer for everyone involved!

I'm reminded of a doctor's visit when my older son was a wobbly legged toddler. A blood test was indicated and I extended my arm while the doctor (we're talking 40-odd years ago got out his needle.

The nurse/receptionist/doctor's wife barrelled into the room and tried to shield my son from The Horrid Sight.

Both the doctor and I made it clear that she was being officious, not protective.

Mo undoubtedly has a clear idea of how a blood donor is supposed to behave--learned from observation, not preaching. I'll bet two cookies and a dog biscuit that this will carry over to his own medical appointments.