Blood donors' satisfaction with medical services

Full Text

Introduction

Creating a sufficient supply of safe donated blood and blood components is one of the most important tasks for the healthcare system of every country. Voluntary donors play a key role in the blood service system, as blood and blood components are currently obtained mainly from voluntary donations, and modern technologies do not yet allow blood to be obtained by other methods [1–3].

According to the World Health Organization, many countries are seeing a trend toward an increase in voluntary unpaid blood donations. Thus, in 79 countries, more than 90% of blood supplies come from voluntary donors, including 64 countries where this share reaches 99% or higher. This is particularly relevant for low- and middle-income countries, where the development of blood donation is of strategic importance for ensuring the safety of medical care [4].

One of the significant factors influencing the formation of a stable donor reserve is donor satisfaction with the donation process [5;6]. A donor's positive perception of the conditions, quality of services provided, and interaction with staff directly influences their decision to continue participating in voluntary unpaid blood donation [7; 8].

In this study, satisfaction is considered as a set of positive feelings and attitudes formed in donors as a result of their interaction with the blood service and its specialists [9]. International quality management system standards emphasize the importance of service user satisfaction as one of the main criteria for the effectiveness of quality systems in healthcare [10].

This work is devoted to studying donor satisfaction with the blood donation process, which is one of the factors influencing the formation and strengthening of the donor movement.

The aim of the study is to assess donor satisfaction with the services provided by the Astana Research and Production Center for Transfusiology (RPCT) between 2022 and 2024 and to develop recommendations for improving the quality of services provided.

Materials and Methods

The study subjects were blood and blood component donors who donated blood at the Scientific and Production Center for Transfusiology, having given their verbal consent to participate in the study with a guarantee of anonymity.

The study was conducted over three years, from 2022 to 2024, during which time 2,794 donors were surveyed.

In 2022–2023, researchers surveyed blood donors immediately after each donation process was completed. In 2024, electronic surveying was introduced using Google Forms by scanning a QR code.

The donor questionnaire included four questions concerning the availability of information about donation, the quality of staff work during manipulations and procedures, the level of communication skills of staff, and the conditions of stay at the RPCT.

To assess the conditions of medical services provided to donors, a scale was proposed using the following scores: "excellent" – 5 points, "good" – 4 points, "normal" – 3 points, ‘poor’ – 2 points, "very poor" – 1 point.

The survey results were processed using the pivot table function in Microsoft Excel and descriptive statistics.

Results and Discussion

Over the course of three years, 2,794 whole blood donors were surveyed: 506 in 2022, 1,383 in 2023, and 905 in 2024. The number of donors surveyed in 2024 decreased, probably due to the transition to an electronic questionnaire format this year using QR code scanning.

The first question in the questionnaire about the availability of information on donation over three years yielded the following results:

Most donors rated the availability of information as "excellent" and "good" – 2,484 (88.9%) donors, 239 (8.5%) donors chose the answer "normal", 38 (1.4%) chose "poor", and 33 (1.2%) chose "very poor" (Table 1).

 

Table 1. Results of the assessment of the accessibility of information on donation (brochures, website, social media)

Evaluation criterion	2022		2023		2024		Average indicator for all years
	abs.	%	abs.	%	abs.	%	abs.	%
5 ("excellent")	397	78.4	1078	78	681	75.2	2156	77.2
4 ("good")	91	18	137	10	100	11	328	11.7
3 ("average")	16	3.2	150	10.8	73	8.06	239	8.5
2 ("poor")	-	-	12	0.8	26	2.9	38	1.4
1 ("very poor")	2	0.4	6	0.4	25	2.8	33	1.2
Total	506		1383		905		2794	100

 

The data obtained showed a predominance of high ratings for the first question in the questionnaire (Fig. 1): in 2022, 78.4% of ratings were "excellent", in 2023 – 78%, but in 2024 there was a slight decrease to 75.2%. Ratings at the "good" level: in 2022 – 18%, in 2023 – 10%, in 2024 – 11%. "Fair" and "poor" ratings had a smaller share: 3.2% in 2022, 10.8% and 0.8% in 2023, and 8.06% and 2.8% in 2024. Ratings of "very poor" accounted for only 0.4% in 2022 and 2023, and 2.8% in 2024.

 

Fig. 1. Results of a survey on donor satisfaction with the availability of information about donation, % (abs.)

 

The second question in the questionnaire, which assessed donor satisfaction with the quality of staff work during manipulations and procedures, yielded the results summarized in Table 2.

 

Table 2. Results of assessing the quality of staff performance when performing manipulations and procedures

Evaluation criterion	2022		2023		2024		Average indicator for all years
	abs.	%	abs.	%	abs.	%	abs.	%
5 ("excellent")	450	88.9	1294	93.5	849	93.8	2593	92.8
4 ("good")	52	10.3	55	4	44	4.9	151	5.4
3 ("average")	4	0.8	34	2.4	7	0.8	45	1.6
2 ("poor")	-	-	-	-	4	0.4	4	0.1
1 ("very poor")	-	-	-	-	1	0.1	1	0.1
Total	506		1383		905		2794	100

 

In 2022, the share of "excellent" ratings was 88.9%, in 2023 it increased to 93.5%, and in 2024 it reached 93.8%. On average, the indicator was 92.8% for the entire period under review, and a positive trend was observed over the three years, with a gradual increase in the level of satisfaction on this issue.

A rating of "good" was recorded for 10.3% of respondents in 2022, decreased to 4% in 2023, and amounted to 4.9% in 2024. The average rating for this category over the three years was 5.4 %.

Ratings at the "normal" level accounted for a smaller share: 0.8% in 2022 and 2024, and 2.4% in 2023. Ratings at the ‘poor’ and "very poor" levels were only recorded in 2024 and accounted for 0.5%.

In total, "excellent" and "good" ratings accounted for 98.2% of the total number of reviews for the entire period. Figure 2 shows apositive trend in the assessment of the quality of medical staff's work when performing manipulations and procedures, with the share of "excellent" ratings increasing from 88.9% to 93.8% over three years. At the same time, there was a decrease in the share of "good" ratings from 10.3% to 4.9%.

 

Fig. 2. Level of donor satisfaction with the quality of staff work when performing manipulations and procedures in dynamics for 2022–2024, %

 

The third question in the questionnaire, which assessed donor satisfaction with the communication skills of staff (politeness, ethics, competence), yielded the results shown in Table 3.

 

Table 3. Results of the assessment of staff communication skills (courtesy, ethics, competence)

Evaluation criterion	2022		2023		2024		Average indicator for all years
	abs.	%	abs.	%	abs.	%	abs.	%
5 ("excellent")	447	88.3	1349	97.5	854	94.4	2650	94.8
4 ("good")	49	9.7	12	0.8	39	4.3	100	3.6
3 ("average")	10	2	22	1.6	9	1	41	1.5
2 ("poor")	-	-	-	-	1	0.1	1	0.03
1 ("very poor")	-	-	-	-	2	0.2	2	0.07
Total	506		1383		905		2794	100

 

Most of the donors surveyed were satisfied with the communication skills of the staff – 2,750 (98.4%) people. Among them, 2,650 (94.8%) donors rated the communication skills of the staff as "excellent" and 100 (3.6%) as "good", 41 (1.5%) rated them as "average", and only 3 (0.1%) donors rated them as "poor" or "very poor".

The proportion of respondents who rated the communication skills of staff as "excellent" (5 points) has remained consistently high over the past three years: 88.3% in 2022, 97.5% in 2023, and 94.4% in 2024. Ratings of "good" (4 points) are also present, but in smaller numbers: in 2022– 9.7% in 2023, 0.8% in 2024, and 4.3% in 2024. Ratings at the "normal" level (3 points) amounted to only 2% in 2022, 1.6% in 2023, and 1% in 2024.

The fourth question in the questionnaire, which assessed donor satisfaction with the conditions at the RPCT, yielded the following results. Over the three years of the study, 2,775(99.3%) of the donors surveyed rated the conditions (including sanitary and hygienic conditions, waiting conditions in the lobby, and the process of donating blood and blood components) as "good" or "excellent". 16 (0.6%) donors rated the conditions as "normal" and 3(0.1%) as ‘poor’; there were no "very poor" ratings on this question (Table 4).

 

Table 4. Results of the assessment of conditions of stay (sanitary and hygienic conditions, conditions of waiting in the lobby, the process of donating blood and its components)

Evaluation criterion	2022		2023		2024		Average indicator for all years
	abs.	%	abs.	%	abs.	%	abs.	%
5 ("excellent")	470	92.9	1360	98.3	853	94.3	2683	96
4 ("good")	32	6.3	19	1.4	41	4.5	92	3.3
3 ("average")	4	0.8	3	0.2	9	1	16	0.6
2 ("poor")	-	-	1	0.07	2	0.2	3	0.1
1 ("very poor")	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Total	506		1383		905		2794	100

 

Most participants answered the fourth question of the questionnaire with "excellent" (Fig. 3): in 2022, 92.9% of ratings were "excellent" (5 points), in 2023 – 98.3%, in 2024 – 94.3%. Ratings of "good" (4 points) were less common: 6.3% in 2022, 1.4% in 2023, and 4.5% in 2024. "Fair" grades (3 points) accounted for only 0.8% in 2022, 0.2% in 2023, and 1% in 2024. Ratings at the "poor" level (2 points) are minimal, amounting to 0.07% in 2023 and 0.2% in 2024.

 

Fig. 3. Results of a survey on donor satisfaction with the conditions of their stay at the RPCT, % (absolute values)

 

The final data on the fourth question of the questionnaire show that 99.3% of the ratings for the entire period were at the "good" and "excellent" levels.

Taking into account the data obtained, an analysis of literary sources was carried out to compare the level of satisfaction of blood donors and patients with the medical services provided in other countries.

The German Red Cross Blood Donation Service conducted a study on the intention of German whole blood donors to return for further blood donations. A questionnaire consisting of 17 questions was sent to 7,500 blood donors, of whom 3,555 responded. Of these, 1,608 (45.3%) were men and 1,941 (54.6%) were women. Their ages ranged from 18 to 61. The donor questionnaire included questions about donor motivation, donor recruitment, satisfaction with the last donation, experience with additional safety measures, donation history, and socio-demographic characteristics. Rating on a 5-point Likert scale from "strongly disagree (1)", indicating very low satisfaction, to "strongly agree (5)": 77.5% were very satisfied with the observance of social distancing rules during blood donation, 80.1% of donors reported that they felt very safe, 53.3% said they were very satisfied with the information provided, and 20.3% said they were dissatisfied. Subgroup analysis showed that men and young donors in particular would like to receive more information. 89.8% of donors reported that they would be very likely to return [11].

A similar study was conducted at the Regional Hemotherapy Center in Franca (Brazil). Atotal of 1,014 donors responded to the BDSQ questionnaire. The BDSQ questionnaire was completed anonymously by donors in the blood center cafeteria after they had finished donating blood. Written informed consent was obtained from all donors. Rated on a 5-point scale, with response categories ranging from "very satisfied" to "very dissatisfied". The scales include emoticons to help express perceptions of satisfaction. The questionnaire consisted of 25questions, including questions about the general characteristics of respondents, such as gender, age, number of previous donations, reason for current blood donation, and time spent traveling to the blood bank. 1,014 donors participated in the survey, of whom 571(56.3%) were men and 443 (43.7%) were women, aged 18–61. The average age of donors was 33.5 years. The analysis showed that older donors were more likely to report lower overall satisfaction with the services provided by the blood bank [12].

A similar study was also conducted in Spain, where the study population consisted of active donors, i.e., individuals over the age of 18 living in Spain who had donated blood at least once. The data was collected using an online questionnaire that respondents filled out themselves. To evaluate various aspects related to service quality, a 7-point Likert scale with 19 items was used ("1" – very negative and "7" – very positive). The proposed scale consisted of four dimensions: tangibility (3 items), accessibility (4 items), personal attention and professionalism (8 items), and post-donation (4 items). The scale includes aspects related to the physical environment of service (e.g., "The facilities are reasonably clean"). It can be concluded that differences in gender and age may be due to the fact that women pay more attention to the details of the services offered to donors and the atmosphere at blood donation centers, while older people are more interested in receiving warm and attentive service and are more sensitive to their surroundings [13]. 

Thus, analysis of foreign data has shown that, despite differences in socioeconomic and cultural conditions, the key factors determining donor satisfaction remain the professionalism of staff, politeness and attentiveness, quality of communication, and the creation of a favorable and safe atmosphere at blood donation centers. These aspects must be taken into account when developing and implementing measures to improve service and increase donor loyalty in blood services.

The final data from the study demonstrate a consistently high level of service quality, according to the donors who participated in the study. Regarding the first question in the questionnaire about the availability of information on donation, most donors were satisfied with the availability of information (88.9%). Regarding the second question in the questionnaire, which assessed donor satisfaction with the quality of staff work during manipulations and procedures, the average score for the entire study period was 92.8%, and a positive trend was observed over the three years, with a gradual increase in satisfaction levels in this regard. On the third question of the questionnaire, which assessed donors' satisfaction with the communication skills of staff (politeness, ethics, competence), the majority of donors surveyed were satisfied with the communication skills of staff – 98.4% of respondents. The final data on the fourth question of the questionnaire showed that 99.3% of donors were completely satisfied with the conditions of their stay at the center.  

At RPCT, the results of the donor satisfaction survey on the quality of services provided are analyzed annually and reviewed at a meeting of the quality council commission in order to assess donor satisfaction with the quality of services provided. Based on the results of the assessment, an action plan is developed to improve the quality of services provided by the center in order to increase its effectiveness. In addition to answering the questionnaire, donors can scan a QR code to leave suggestions for improving the center's activities. The RPCT holds quarterly meetings to review proposals from blood and blood component donors in an open and constructive format. Discussions involve representatives from various departments, and decisions are made collectively, taking into account the opinions of donors and specialists. Following the meeting, decisions are made to improve the quality of services provided, and all decisions are recorded in the minutes. This approach allows us to respond quickly to suggestions, improve service quality, and create comfortable conditions for donors.

To promote voluntary unpaid blood donation, the center actively conducts informational and educational work with the population and holds donor and informational sessions. In order to promote blood donation, work is being carried out with the akimat (advertising donation on billboards and bus shelters in the city), the Amanat party, and the Merek public foundation. Since 2023, announcements have been made on radio stations, and work has been carried out with the media (interviews, participation in television programs).

Thus, analysis of the survey results showed that most of the donors surveyed were satisfied with the quality of services provided in the four areas studied. However, there were a few negative responses to the survey questions, which suggests that there are some areas of donor service provision that could be improved.

Conclusions

The study showed that most donors are satisfied with the quality of services provided at RPCT in four areas: availability of information about donation, quality of staff work during manipulations and procedures, level of communication skills of staff, and conditions of stay at RPCT. 

Since the survey results showed a small percentage of negative ratings, further work is needed to improve the quality of services provided.

To further improve the accessibility of information about donation, it is recommended to expand informational materials, make more active use of digital and social platforms, introduce visual and interactive content, and regularly study the informational needs of donors. This will increase satisfaction and attract more regular participants to the donor movement.

In order to maintain a high level of satisfaction with the quality of work performed by medical personnel during manipulations and procedures, it is necessary to continue regular training and professional development of employees.

To further strengthen trust-based relationships with donors and improve service quality, it is necessary to continue training in communication skills and ethics.

These aspects must be taken into account when developing and implementing measures to improve service and increase donor loyalty in blood services.

Funding. The study had no external funding.

Conflict of interest. The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Author contributions:

Mukhambetova A.A. – conducting research, working with data.

Abdrakhmanova S.A. – defining the concept, reviewing and editing the manuscript.

Alpamis N.B. – analyzing data, writing the draft text of the article.

Zhangazieva K.H. – conducting research, analyzing data, writing the draft text of the article.

Bekmakhanova B.S. – conducting research, working with data, analyzing data, writing the draft text of the article.

Turgambaeva A.K. – concept development, manuscript review and editing.

All authors approved the final version of the article and agreed to take responsibility for all aspects of this work, ensuring proper consideration and resolution of issues related to the accuracy and integrity of any part of it.

Study limitations. The study complies with the standards of the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Ethics Committee of the Ye.A. Vagner Perm State Medical University, protocol No. 6 dated September 10, 2025.

About the authors

A. A. Mukhambetova

Scientific and Production Center for Transfusiology

Email: assiya739@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0001-6939-3258

Quality Control Manager

Kazakhstan, Astana

S. A. Abdrakhmanova

Scientific and Production Center for Transfusiology

Email: assiya739@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0782-1795

PhD (Medicine), Chairman of the Board

Kazakhstan, Astana

N. B. Alpamys

Scientific and Production Center for Transfusiology

Email: assiya739@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-3294-683X

Head of the Department of Quality Management and Internal Audit

Kazakhstan, Astana

K. Kh. Zhangazieva

Scientific and Production Center for Transfusiology

Email: assiya739@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2005-006X

Head of the Department of Research Management

Kazakhstan, Astana

B. S. Bekmakhanova

Scientific and Production Center for Transfusiology

Email: assiya739@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0009-0009-7918-5522

Manager of the Department of Research Management

Kazakhstan, Astana

A. K. Turgambayeva

Astana Medical University

Author for correspondence.
Email: assiya739@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-2300-0105

PhD (Medicine), Professor, Head of the Department of Public Health and Management

Kazakhstan, Astana

References

Supplementary files