Screening for anemia in Red Cross blood donor clinics

Accurate screening for anemia at Red Cross blood donor clinics is essential to maintain a safe national blood supply. Despite the importance of identifying anemia correctly by measurement of hemoglobin or hematocrit (hemoglobin/hematocrit) there is no consensus regarding the efficacy of the current two stage screening method which uses the Readacrit$\sp{\rm tm}$ microhematocrit in conjunction with copper sulfate.^ A cross-sectional study was implemented in which hemoglobin/hematocrit was measured, with the present method and four new devices, on 504 prospective blood donors at a Canadian Red Cross permanent blood donor clinic in London, Canada. Concurrently gathered, venous and capillary blood samples were tested by each device and compared to Coulter S IV$\sp{\rm tm}$ determined venous standard readings. Instrument hemoglobin/hematocrit means were statistically calibrated to the standard ones in order to appraise systematic deviations from the standard. Classification analysis was employed to assess concordance between each instrument and the standard when classifying prospective donors as anemic or non-anemic. This was done both when each instrument was used alone (single stage) and when copper sulfate was used as a preliminary screen (two stage) and simulated over a range of anemia prevalences. The Hemoximeter$\sp{\rm tm}$ and Compur M1000$\sp{\rm tm}$ devices had the highest correlations of hemoglobin measurements with the standard ones for both capillary (n.s.) and venous blood (p $<$.05). Analysis of variance (anova) also showed them to be the most accurate (p $<$.05), as did both single and two stage classification analysis, therefore, they are both recommended. There was a smaller difference between instruments for two stage than for single stage screening; therefore instrument choice is less crucial for the former. The present method was adequate for two stage screening as tested but simulations showed that it would discriminate poorly in populations with a higher prevalence of anemia. The Stat-crit and Readacrit, which measure hematocrit, became less accurate at crucial low hematocrit levels. In light of this finding and the introduction of new, effective and easy to use hemoglobin measuring instruments, the continued use of hematocrit as a surrogate for hemoglobin, is not recommended. ^

Cost-benefit analysis: The ``gold standard'' re-examined

The dissertation reviews the recommendations of the Panel on Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine (Panel) convened by the US Public Health Service in 1993 in four areas: aggregation of costs and benefits, methods of estimating resources used, definition of population impacted and perspective used in cost benefit analysis. Financial data from a clinical trial was used to test whether different approaches in each of the above four areas would change the net benefit resulting from a cost benefit analysis. Differences in aggregation of cost and benefit resulted in the same net benefit, but not the same cost/benefit ratios. Differences in resource use estimation methods, population subgroups definitions and perspectives all produced different net benefits. Difference in perspective resulted in different and often opposing decisions as to whether the proposed intervention from the clinical trial should be implemented. ^

A comparative analysis of Texas and Louisiana Oil-field NORM Waste Policy

NORM (Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material) Waste Policies for the nation's oil and gas producing states have been in existence since the 1980's, when Louisiana was the first state to develop a NORM regulatory program in 1989. Since that time, expectations for NORM Waste Policies have evolved, as Health, Safety, Environment, and Social responsibility (HSE & SR) grows increasingly important to the public. Therefore, the oil and gas industry's safety and environmental performance record will face challenges in the future, about its best practices for managing the co-production of NORM wastes. ^ Within the United States, NORM is not federally regulated. The U.S. EPA claims it regulates NORM under CERCLA (superfund) and the Clean Water Act. Though, there are no universally applicable regulations for radium-based NORM waste. Therefore, individual states have taken responsibility for developing NORM regulatory programs, because of the potential radiological risk it can pose to man (bone and lung cancer) and his environment. This has led to inconsistencies in NORM Waste Policies as well as a NORM management gap in both state and federal regulatory structures. ^ Fourteen different NORM regulations and guidelines were compared between Louisiana and Texas, the nation's top two petroleum producing states. Louisiana is the country's top crude oil producer when production from its Federal offshore waters are included, and fourth in crude oil production, behind Texas, Alaska, and California when Federal offshore areas are excluded. Louisiana produces more petroleum products than any state but Texas. For these reasons, a comparative analysis between Louisiana and Texas was undertaken to identify differences in their NORM regulations and guidelines for managing, handling and disposing NORM wastes. Moreover, this analysis was undertaken because Texas is the most explored and drilled worldwide and yet appears to lag behind its neighboring state in terms of its NORM Waste Policy and developing an industry standard for handling, managing and disposing NORM. As a result of this analysis, fourteen recommendations were identified.^