[Gaia]

Dear all,
As we discussed in April, there are a few items we want to cover in the Training.

Please provide us with your comments by May 3rd! Looking forward to hearing from you.

(I) History & Introduction
– History of donor selection, eligibility criteria, the precautionary principle.
– Findings from WP4 – differences across countries, lack of Best Practices, the Directives, Guides (the majority can be taken from the WP4 report and organize the lessons based on the SoHOs and general findings)

(II) General Principles (still in a Draft form, Christina will work on finishing this in the coming weeks)
– Importance of donor selection and protection principles
Ethics – the balance between risk and benefits

(III) SoHOs
– Common risks (risks that have been addressed for Blood will now be addressed by Plasma, Tissues & Cells)
– SoHO specific risks (top 10 risks for all other SoHOs)
– How did we come to these risks?
a. Donors and recipients – lists of risks. How do you assess and provide evidence
Risk mitigation – the DHQ
b. Creating a type of “toolbox” where you can select general questions and the specific questions for your SoHO

[Alex Aquilina]

Perhaps the impact of data protection legislation on donor acceptance may be relevant

[Gaia]

MvK – validation of the DHQ
Eva P. insist more on the subject of risk mitigation. She thinks that talking about the Dhq only could not be enough to cover the recipient’s side of the problem.

[Eva-Maria Merz]

Dear Gaia, dear all,

I think it is also important to give a short overview/outline of the whole TRANSPOSE project. This could be included in the history part at the beginning.
In addition to the substantive parts (this still warrants learning outcomes), you also need an overview of how the program is organized, teaching tools (e-learning environment), methods, how much time it takes to review the material, short information on who has developed the training and for whom it is useful. A contact address/person should also be part of the program in case questions or clarification issues arise.

I think this is it for now.
Best,
Eva-Maria.

[Eva Veropalumbo]

Dear all,

as Gaia wrote before I think it would be better to split the “Risk Mitigation” subject into two sub-sections.

1) Risk Mitigation for adverse reactions in donors – Physical requirements (age, gender, et al) and DHQ

2) Risk Mitigation for adverse reactions in recipients – DHQ, screening lab tests for donors; viral inactivation and quality controls/bacterial contamination; need to standardize hemo and bio-vigilance systems.

[Donata Forioso]

Dear colleagues,

I agree with Eva-Maria, we need a general introduction, that should also contain:
– The relevance of the project
– Objectives (Mission and Vision)
– Methods/tools
– Learning outcomes (skills and abilities to be developed)
– Agenda (with all the topics about the deliverables and reports and other materials produced during the project)
– Addressees and stakeholders (participants and listeners)
– Discussions (forum or FAQ)
– Learning tests.

Maybe I forgot something (sorry, it’s Friday).
Have a nice weekend

Donata

• This reply was modified 4 years ago by Donata Forioso.

[Author]

Posts