In Focus
ISBT & IHN
Unlocking opportunities for global collaboration
In an increasingly interconnected world, ensuring the safety and effectiveness of transfusion medicine requires coordinated effort across borders. This article focusses on efforts of two of the organisations that sit at the forefront on the mission of blood transfusion safety: the International Society of Blood Transfusion (ISBT) (Haemovigilance working party) and the International Haemovigilance Network (IHN).
Distinguishing ISBT and IHN Memberships
ISBT is a broad, multidisciplinary scientific society whose global membership includes researchers, clinicians, laboratory scientists, transfusion specialists, donor-care professionals, blood establishment leaders, and students. Its strength lies in this intellectual diversity, which drives innovation, scientific exchange, and the spread of new knowledge across science, practice, and policy.
IHN, by contrast, is a collaborative network of organisations rather than individuals. Its members are national and regional haemovigilance systems and professional bodies responsible for monitoring donation and transfusion-related incidents. This organisational model grounds IHN in patient safety and surveillance, enabling collective learning, harmonised definitions, and shared approaches to identifying risks and improving transfusion safety.
Together, the distinct membership structures of ISBT and IHN are complementary: ISBT provides scientific breadth, education, and global engagement, while IHN contributes operational depth, surveillance insight, and direct connection to real-world transfusion safety. Combined, they form a partnership rooted in both evidence and practice.
Impact of ISBT–IHN Collaboration and Ongoing Projects ISBT and IHN have a long, productive collaboration with significant global impact on transfusion safety. 1. Board Representation: Mutual representation (IHN at the ISBT Haemovigilance Working Party and ISBT at the IHN Board) brings together scientific and operational expertise. This joint leadership supports development of shared guidance, improved haemovigilance methodologies, and stronger national systems, creating a solid foundation for international consensus and continuous improvement. 2. Common Definitions and Reporting Frameworks: A core focus is developing, refining, and validating harmonised haemovigilance definitions and reporting tools. This includes deep dives into complex areas like respiratory complications to clarify criteria, align case definitions, and validate severity grading. Standardisation reduces ambiguity and improves reliability of global comparisons. 3. Thematic Initiatives: The ISBT HV Working Party leads targeted projects addressing emerging needs, including AI in haemovigilance, objectifying imputability, and the paediatric TACO project. It has also completed a global traceability survey and is creating educational resources to support operational improvements. 4. Capacity Building and Education: Shared learning remains central to the partnership. Through congresses, webinars, workshops, and other activities, IHN contributes practical, implementation-focused expertise. Joint efforts produce educational resources for different transfusion staff groups, promoting awareness and good practice. Insights from both networks feed into guideline development and ensure real-world safety lessons rapidly inform scientific understanding and clinical practice. These activities are especially valuable for low- and middle-income countries and help strengthen connections with organisations such as WHO. Overall, the ISBT–IHN partnership advances both the science and practice of haemovigilance. Co-hosted events, shared guidance, and collaborative publications highlight a durable partnership that continues to enhance transfusion safety worldwide.
Strengths and Challenges
A major strength of the ISBT–IHN partnership lies in the complementary nature of their missions. ISBT’s global platform, scientific breadth, and reputation for excellence provide an ideal environment for disseminating haemovigilance knowledge. IHN, with its focus on surveillance and safety, contributes evidence-based insights grounded in real-world experience. This synergy creates a comprehensive ecosystem for advancing transfusion safety.
Other strengths include well-established working structures, broad international coverage, and a collaborative culture that encourages innovation and shared learning. Together, these factors give the partnership credibility and influence across professional, scientific, and regulatory spheres.
However, several challenges also persist. Wide variation in national haemovigilance systems can make global comparisons difficult. Data quality remains inconsistent, particularly in settings where resources are limited. Harmonising definitions across diverse health systems requires sustained commitment and ongoing refinement. Additionally, maintaining engagement across organisations with different membership models and strategic priorities can demand careful coordination.
Recognising these challenges is essential to ensuring that future efforts remain realistic, inclusive, and impactful.
Future Prospects
The future presents significant opportunities for even deeper and broader collaboration between ISBT and IHN. Beyond ongoing scientific and data-driven initiatives, there is substantial potential to strengthen links with other ISBT Working Parties—such as the Information Technology and Paediatric subgroup of Clinical Transfusion working party —to jointly support improvement projects. These cross-disciplinary collaborations can accelerate the development of practical tools, harmonised methodologies, and shared educational resources.
There is also strong potential to expand engagement with various other national and international organisations, such as Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT) and other haemovigilance organisations; Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB), Asian Association of Transfusion Medicine (AATM), Africa Society for Blood Transfusion (AFSBT), and equivalent organisations across the world in all the WHO regions, to amplify global impact and add further momentum to ongoing initiatives and promote more consistent haemovigilance practices worldwide. Strengthened collaboration with global bodies such as the World Health Organization may also help scale haemovigilance systems in low-resource settings. Joint training, mentorship programmes, and targeted guidance could accelerate capacity building where it is most needed.
As countries increasingly adopt electronic reporting systems and integrate transfusion information with national health records, the scope for advanced analytics and global data integration continues to grow. Joint work on AI-supported trend analysis, early warning systems, and predictive modelling offers a powerful opportunity to enhance global safety insights and contribute to proactive risk mitigation across the entire transfusion chain.
Conclusion
While challenges remain, the future offers rich opportunities to deepen the collaboration and drive global improvements in transfusion safety. As transfusion medicine continues to evolve, the combined efforts of ISBT and IHN will remain essential in ensuring safer systems and better outcomes for patients around the world. Finally, as the field increasingly embraces patient-centred perspectives, both organisations are well placed to champion patient experience and outcomes within haemovigilance frameworks. Together, ISBT and IHN can help shape a future where scientific innovation and patient safety move forward hand-in-hand.
