# Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice Related to Hemovigilance: A Cross-Sectional Study Among Entry-Level Medical Professionals in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital in Northern India

## TL;DR

This study explores the knowledge, attitudes, and practices of young medical professionals in India regarding hemovigilance and finds a gap between awareness and actual reporting of transfusion reactions.

## Contribution

The study identifies barriers to transfusion reaction reporting and proposes strategies to improve engagement among entry-level medical professionals in India.

## Key findings

- Most participants recognized transfusion reactions but few were aware of the National Hemovigilance Program.
- Only a small percentage of participants had reported a transfusion reaction, indicating a significant practice gap.
- Participants strongly supported curricular integration and institutional enrollment in hemovigilance programs.

## Abstract

Background: Hemovigilance is a critical surveillance system designed to enhance blood transfusion safety by monitoring, detecting, and preventing adverse transfusion reactions. Despite the launch of the Hemovigilance Program of India, awareness and engagement remain notably low among entry-level medical professionals, potentially compromising patient safety and quality of care.

Objective: This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitude, and practice (KAP) related to hemovigilance, identify barriers to adverse transfusion reaction reporting, and recommend strategies to enhance participation and improve reporting culture among entry-level medical professionals at a tertiary care teaching hospital in northern India.

Methods: A descriptive, cross-sectional questionnaire-based survey was conducted among 414 entry-level medical professionals, including MBBS students (first & second professional years), postgraduate medical trainees, and resident doctors. The 20-item questionnaire explored various domains such as demographic characteristics, knowledge related to hemovigilance, and attitudes toward transfusion reaction reporting, actual reporting practices, perceived barriers, and potential strategies to enhance reporting. Data were collected in offline mode over a period of three months using a pen-and-paper approach.

Results: The majority of participants, 376 (90.8%), were between 20 and 30 years of age, with a predominance of female participants, 234 (56.5%). Awareness of transfusion reactions was high (386; 93.2%), and most participants recognized their preventability (328; 79.2%), yet only 152 (36.7%) were aware of the National Hemovigilance Program. Positive attitudes towards hemovigilance were evident, with nearly all participants endorsing its benefits (414; 100%) and acknowledging professional responsibility to report (396; 95.6%). Support for curricular integration (402; 97.1%) and enrolment of every institution under PvPI (384; 92.7%) was strong. However, only 56 (13.5%) had witnessed a transfusion reaction, and a meagre 22 (5.3%) had reported one, signifying a substantial practice gap. Suggested improvements included user-friendly mobile app development, compulsory reporting, and targeted educational interventions.

Conclusion: Although medical professionals demonstrated strong knowledge and positive attitudes toward hemovigilance, practical implementation is lacking. Enhanced education, streamlined reporting tools, and institutional support are imperative to bridge the gap between awareness and practice, thereby improving blood transfusion safety and patient outcomes. Early introduction of hemovigilance and incentivization like certificates of appreciation, acknowledgement of names on hospital display boards or newsletters/magazines, grace marks, attendance credit for students, and a token of appreciation for faculty members can play a big role in improving reporting.