Search

Background: The occurrence of high titres of alpha (anti-A) and beta (anti-B) haemolysin immunoglobulin G antibodies in blood causes haemolysis during blood transfusion from a group O donor, commonly and inappropriately known as the ‘universal blood donor’, to a group A, B or AB recipient. Surprisingly, haemolysin testing is not routinely done during blood transfusion services in Bamenda, Cameroon. Objective: This study aimed to determine the prevalence of haemolysin among blood group ‘O’ donors at the Regional Hospital Bamenda Blood Bank, Bamenda, Cameroon. Methods: This was a cross-sectional descriptive study carried out between June and September 2020 at the Regional Hospital Bamenda Blood Bank, Bamenda, Cameroon. Blood group O donors who were free from transfusion-transmissible infections were selected systematically and serially and their serum tested for the presence of haemolysin. Haemolysin titres were determined, and titres ≥ 8 were considered significant. The associations between haemolysin prevalence and age group, gender and Rhesus D blood group were determined using the chi-square test. Results: The prevalence of haemolysin among the 480 study participants was 52.1% and significant haemolysin titres were detected in 18.5%. There was no association between haemolysin and gender, age group or the Rhesus D blood group. Conclusion: The prevalence of significant titres of haemolysin among participants in this study was high. There is the need to test for haemolysin in blood group O donors to prevent the potential risk to blood group A, B, and AB recipients and to provide safer blood for transfusion.

Background: In the era of evidence-based medicine, haematological reference intervals are essential for the interpretation of data for clinical decision-making, monitoring of treatment and research. It is not uncommon that reference intervals used in most African countries have been obtained from published scientific literature, textbooks, reagent/instrument manuals. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine haematological reference intervals of healthy adults in Bamenda, Cameroon. Methods: This was a cross-sectional study conducted between June and November 2015. Participants were voluntary blood donors at the Blood Bank Service of the Regional Hospital Bamenda aged between 18 and 65 years. The mean, median and standard deviation of the mean were calculated for each haematological parameter. The 95th percentile reference intervals were determined using the 2.5th and 97.5th percentile. The differences between gender for all the parameters were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test. Significance was determined at the 95% confidence level. Results: Out of a total of 340 participants, 202 (59.4%) were men and 138 (40.6%) were women. The median red blood cell, haemoglobin, haematocrit and mean cell haemoglobin concentration were significantly higher in men than women (p 0.001). The median white blood cell, absolute lymphocytes count, absolute granulocytes and platelet counts for men were significantly lower than those for women (p 0.011). Conclusion: We propose that the present established haematological reference intervals in this study should be used for clinical management of patients and interpretation of laboratory data for research in Bamenda.

Background: Customers’ satisfaction is imperative for success. Clinical laboratories continuously strive to attain very high levels of customer satisfaction to serve their clients and maintain accreditation. The concept of customer satisfaction has not yet been asserted in most clinical laboratories in Cameroon. Objectives: Our objectives were to assess the satisfaction of clinicians with the laboratory services at the Bamenda Regional Hospital Laboratory, identify important challenges, corrective actions implemented and changes in satisfaction. Methods: This retrospective study reviewed secondary data from clinician satisfaction survey records from March 2017 and November 2017. Challenges and implemented corrective actions were identified for assessed statements of dissatisfaction (dissatisfaction rates ≥ 20%) on the March 2017 survey. Satisfaction rates in March 2017 and November 2017 were compared. Results: High levels of dissatisfaction were observed for general satisfaction, waiting time, communication, duty consciousness, specimen collection and approach on the March 2017 survey. The main challenges identified were: lack of respect for the expected length of the waiting time, poor attitude, inadequate information, staff shortage and inadequate supervision. Statistically significant reductions in rates of dissatisfaction were observed for general satisfaction, waiting time, communication, response to emergencies, issuing of results, specimen collection, approach and duty consciousness. Conclusion: Waiting time is a major cause of clinician dissatisfaction with laboratory services. The identification of clinicians’ challenges and the effective implementation of corrective actions contribute to improvements in clinician satisfaction.