The Open Forum was held at the end of the meeting and allowed attendees to raise questions about points addressed during the meeting, or any other issues about blood stock management.

The OPEN FORUM ARENA will enable all participants to learn from the topics raised and also to contribute to the discussion.

Questions raised:

1. Should the BSMS lobby guidelines committees to allow electronic issue of Rh Neg Donor units to Rh Pos recipients and suitable ABO substitutions?

Summary Answer:
The BSMS produces information to empower hospitals, guideline committees, and laboratory system suppliers in making decisions about elements of stock management, including electronic issue. The implementation of electronic issue is a decision which must be made at a hospital level following rigorous risk evaluations. Certainly the panel did not feel that there was any reason why mismatched units should be permitted for electronic issue where appropriate.

2. Do you have any data available to justify reducing reservation times to 24 hrs?

Summary Answer:
The 2001 Inventory practice survey data showed that hospitals with a 24-hour reservation period had a significantly lower O Pos ISI. This suggests that hospitals with a 24-hour reservation period hold less stock and therefore are likely to waste less units. It is recognised that a 24-hour reservation period may not be practical for all hospitals.

3. Why are the NBS maintaining stocks at such a high level when it impacts upon hospital and NBS wastage?

Summary Answer:
Opinions from each of the panel members are currently being collated and will be reported soon.

4. Is there any truth in the rumour that hospital not participating in the BSMS may be penalised when ordering stock from the NBS if shortages occur in the future?

Summary Answer:
In the current framework, no hospital will ever be penalised for not being a member of the BSMS. The BSMS exists as a partnership between hospitals and the NBS and will never advocate penalising any individual hospital. The BSMS is however working with the NBS Contingency Planning Group to provide fair and realistic stock levels for all hospitals that could be used in a shortage situation.

5. Should stock share relationships between hospitals be more actively encouraged or made mandatory?

Summary Answer:
Stock management practice is specific to an individual hospital and indeed mandatory enforcement will not necessarily help improve stock management. Those stock share relationships that do exist (around 60 were reported in the IPS Nov 2003 - Working Practices survey) work successfully around a framework designed by the hospitals involved. There were a number of reasons for relationships existing, mainly to reduce wastage and/or stock levels. There were a number of hospitals reporting that they could not find a willing partner to enter into a partnership so if you are interested in setting up a stock share partnership, please contact the BSMS Office.

6. Should the NBS make AB red cells mandatory in view of the 27% mismatch reported in the morning session?

Summary Answer:
Opinions from each of the panel members are currently being collated and will be reported soon.

7. Does the panel agree that the 'drive' to reduce RBC usage by cell salvage, electronic issue, and lower Hb thresholds is more beneficial in reducing RBCs usage than using the BSMS to monitor usage?

Summary Answer:
Opinions from each of the panel members are currently being collated and will be reported soon.