A WOMAN blood donor who was mistakenly told last week that she had "infectious hepatitis" has received a written apology from the Blood Transfusion Service Board. It has described the error as "inexcusable".
The woman, who attended a BTSB donor clinic, was given the wrong letter. It stated that following a blood test she had been found to have hepatitis, when she should have been told that she was anaemic and could not give blood because of a lack of iron.
The BTSB's national medical director, Dr William Murphy, said last night that it was accepted following a series of external reviews that the service was in need of major overhaul".
There had been changes in senior management, while the building and BTSB computer system had been condemned. This had prompted rebuilding from top to bottom. "It is clear that every part of the organisation needs to be reassessed and rebuilt. We won't finish this for some time, but nobody is under any illusions that the whole process needs to be overhauled."
Dr Murphy said that throughout such a major evaluation the BTSB had to maintain adequate blood supply and ensure blood safety, which was its prime concern.
The woman, Ms Eveleen McGrath, told the Irish Medical News that she had donated blood 28 times since 1989. While she had been told she was anaemic, the letter stated: "It is not possible to accept your generous offer of a blood donation. Unfortunately, those who have infectious hepatitis (jaundice), though completely recovered, may remain carriers of the hepatitis virus for the rest of their lives."
She was unhappy and confused by the incident. When she contacted BTSB later, she was told to destroy the letter. A BTSB doctor had told her not to worry and said she was the second woman who had telephoned about such a problem, she claimed.
The incident appeared to be taken lightly, given what was happening within the BTSB, she added, but she would continue to donate blood. The incident follows recent controversy over the BTSB asking a woman with hepatitis C to give blood, even though it was claimed that it did not represent any public health risk.
It was also criticised for its policy in relation to informing woman treated with contaminated batches of anti-D, after it emerged that a woman continued to give at least five donations before being told she had received an infected batch in 1993.
