Mark Hyw
map-marker Atlanta, Georgia

Very Worried about my plasma donation

Updated by user May 21, 2012

> \'\'.

Establishment Inspection Report

Physicians Plasma Alliance LLC

Johnson City, 1N 37615

OBSERVATION 1

Failure to have donor suitability detetmined by a qualified licensed physician or trained persons

under his supervision.

Donors must be screened using the health history questionnaire prior to each donation. In two out of

ten donor files chosen for review, I noted that two donors did not have the health history questions

asked, or at the least recorded, on the donor card for these dates of donation. This can directly

impact the safety of the donor. In the event that an answer to any of these questions changes from

previous visits, the donor could be harmed or the product\'s safety, purity or potency could be

affected.

OBSERVATION 2

Failure of the examining physician to cettify that each donor is in good health and suitable for

plasmapheresis.

Specifically, donorVJj(p)\'(~)}~reported to the examining physician and the individual presenting the medical history

questions that he was nof\"in good health and feeling well\" the day of donation, but he was accepted for donation of

plasma.

A donor who is feeling ill must not be pheresed as it could potentially harm the donor. A donor who

is not feeling well could be ill with a new disease or in the acute phase of a previously diagoosed

condition. Collecting plasma from an ill donor could put additional stress on an ill donor. Any new

conditions could also affect the safety, purity and potency of the product.

In the case of the donor mentioned in this item, the donor told both the physician conducting the

physical and the screener that he was not feeling well and healthy on the date of the donation.

Neither of these individuals apparently recogoized that the donor should have been temporarily

deferred from donating. The donor was connected to the apheresis machine and the process started,

but the donor then complained that he was feeling too ill to continue and needed to be disconnected.

Discussion with Management:

I showed this to Mr. King who stated that the donor could not have answered the way it had been

recorded on the chart because neither the physician nor his employee would accept the donor if he

was not feeling well. However, the record showing the same response in both locations and the

donor being too ill to continue after the pheresis procedure was begun indicates that the answers

recorded were the answers actually given by the donor and not an error on the part of the recorders.

Mr. King acknowledged that the evidence shows that there was an error and will be retraining his

employees on identifying responses which should cause a deferral. He also stated that this particular

donor was identified by the manufacturer as a Hepatitis A donor, but when the small amount of

plasma that was collected was tested, no evidence of the virus or any antibodies was found.

OBSERVATION 3

Failure to obtain written consent of prospective Source Plasma donors.

Exhibit #6 -Donor card for donor[~f~~liMlJ~~

Donors must give informed consent upon entering the pheresis program and then provide a separate

consent prior to ·each donation acknowledging their free participation in the program. This donor

was pheresed on two separate occasions without first signing the donor card indicating that consent

was given.

Discussion with Management:

Mr. King stated that he had no explanation for this oversight. He indicated that the employee would

be retrained in obtaining consent.

8 of16

Equipment used in the collection and processing of blood and blood components is not calibrated on

a regularly scheduled basis as prescribed in the SOP Manual.

Specifically, the=rn)Jffi\'))jE\'I\'!) plasmapheresis machines used to collect source plasma and thef,k@***i(lfl~

hematocrit device and refractometer used to determine donor suitability for plasmapheresis were not cafi6rated in

, accordance with the manufacturer\'s instructions each day of use prior to collection of source plasma. At least~l!\'~ units of

plasma have been collected between 3/12/11 and 6/5/11 when one or more of these devices were not calibrated-on the

days of collection. For example, two units of plasma were collected on 3/27/11 according to the Bleed Sequence Log.

According to the~~)I(~}Maintenance and Cleaning Logs neither of the plasmapheresis machines received their daily QC

check for that da),;\'nor \\vere the refractometer or[\'J~Jllf_\'1~ devices calibrated for that day according to their respective

control logs.

Discussion with Management:

Mr. King did not have an explanation for the failure of his QA unit to review the records. He

indicated that he would have to retrain and supervise his employees more closely.

OBSERVATION 6

Failure to maintain storage and distribution and quality control records.

OBSERVATION 7

A record is not available from which unsuitable (deferred) donors may be identified so that products

from such individuals will not be distributed.

Specifically, the finn does not have a method to record the identities of donors deferred for any reason so that products

are not distributed from these individuals, as necessary.

Updated by user May 21, 2012

> \'\'.

Establishment Inspection Report

Physicians Plasma Alliance LLC

Johnson City, 1N 37615

OBSERVATION 1

Failure to have donor suitability detetmined by a qualified licensed physician or trained persons

under his supervision.

Donors must be screened using the health history questionnaire prior to each donation. In two out of

ten donor files chosen for review, I noted that two donors did not have the health history questions

asked, or at the least recorded, on the donor card for these dates of donation. This can directly

impact the safety of the donor. In the event that an answer to any of these questions changes from

previous visits, the donor could be harmed or the product\'s safety, purity or potency could be

affected.

OBSERVATION 2

Failure of the examining physician to cettify that each donor is in good health and suitable for

plasmapheresis.

Specifically, donorVJj(p)\'(~)}~reported to the examining physician and the individual presenting the medical history

questions that he was nof\"in good health and feeling well\" the day of donation, but he was accepted for donation of

plasma.

A donor who is feeling ill must not be pheresed as it could potentially harm the donor. A donor who

is not feeling well could be ill with a new disease or in the acute phase of a previously diagoosed

condition. Collecting plasma from an ill donor could put additional stress on an ill donor. Any new

conditions could also affect the safety, purity and potency of the product.

In the case of the donor mentioned in this item, the donor told both the physician conducting the

physical and the screener that he was not feeling well and healthy on the date of the donation.

Neither of these individuals apparently recogoized that the donor should have been temporarily

deferred from donating. The donor was connected to the apheresis machine and the process started,

but the donor then complained that he was feeling too ill to continue and needed to be disconnected.

Discussion with Management:

I showed this to Mr. King who stated that the donor could not have answered the way it had been

recorded on the chart because neither the physician nor his employee would accept the donor if he

was not feeling well. However, the record showing the same response in both locations and the

donor being too ill to continue after the pheresis procedure was begun indicates that the answers

recorded were the answers actually given by the donor and not an error on the part of the recorders.

Mr. King acknowledged that the evidence shows that there was an error and will be retraining his

employees on identifying responses which should cause a deferral. He also stated that this particular

donor was identified by the manufacturer as a Hepatitis A donor, but when the small amount of

plasma that was collected was tested, no evidence of the virus or any antibodies was found.

OBSERVATION 3

Failure to obtain written consent of prospective Source Plasma donors.

Exhibit #6 -Donor card for donor[~f~~liMlJ~~

Donors must give informed consent upon entering the pheresis program and then provide a separate

consent prior to ·each donation acknowledging their free participation in the program. This donor

was pheresed on two separate occasions without first signing the donor card indicating that consent

was given.

Discussion with Management:

Mr. King stated that he had no explanation for this oversight. He indicated that the employee would

be retrained in obtaining consent.

8 of16

Equipment used in the collection and processing of blood and blood components is not calibrated on

a regularly scheduled basis as prescribed in the SOP Manual.

Specifically, the=rn)Jffi\'))jE\'I\'!) plasmapheresis machines used to collect source plasma and thef,k@***i(lfl~

hematocrit device and refractometer used to determine donor suitability for plasmapheresis were not cafi6rated in

, accordance with the manufacturer\'s instructions each day of use prior to collection of source plasma. At least~l!\'~ units of

plasma have been collected between 3/12/11 and 6/5/11 when one or more of these devices were not calibrated-on the

days of collection. For example, two units of plasma were collected on 3/27/11 according to the Bleed Sequence Log.

According to the~~)I(~}Maintenance and Cleaning Logs neither of the plasmapheresis machines received their daily QC

check for that da),;\'nor \\vere the refractometer or[\'J~Jllf_\'1~ devices calibrated for that day according to their respective

control logs.

Discussion with Management:

Mr. King did not have an explanation for the failure of his QA unit to review the records. He

indicated that he would have to retrain and supervise his employees more closely.

OBSERVATION 6

Failure to maintain storage and distribution and quality control records.

OBSERVATION 7

A record is not available from which unsuitable (deferred) donors may be identified so that products

from such individuals will not be distributed.

Specifically, the finn does not have a method to record the identities of donors deferred for any reason so that products

are not distributed from these individuals, as necessary.

Original review May 21, 2012
I was searching on line about my diagnosis when I came accross an ad for Biolynk who recruits patints for my condition (hepatitis) to donate in a plasma study. I contacted this comany who tested my blood and i qualified so they sent me to tennessee to donate. upon getting to the site i was a bit put off but the staff was friendly and nice. I met with the doc (dr boggs i believe was his name) and did my donation. the center I donated at was physicians plasma alliance in gray tn which i guess is associated with dr boggs practice because it's the same building. I should have done my research on biolynk and physicians plasma alliance a little more thoroughly first because what i found on another blog i was mortified (attached belwo). The fda has been there appartneyl and they have LOTS of donor safety issues with them and now im scared to even return calls about donating some more. has anyone else heard of this company? and are my donations safe? please respond with your experience i dont know what to do , IEstablishment Inspection ReportPhysicians Plasma Alliance LLCJohnson City, TN 37615TABLE OF CONTENTSTurbo EIR #259818FEI:EI:300793****06/20-24/2011ABBSummary ........................................................................................................................................... !Administrative Data .......................................................................................................................... 2History ............................................................................................................................................... 2Interstate Commerce/Jurisdiction ..................................................................................................... 3Individual Responsibility and Persons Interviewed .......................................................................... 3Firm's Training Program ........................................ , .......................................................................... 4Operations ......................................................................................................................................... 4Objectionable Conditions and Management's Response .................................................................. 6Refusals ........................................................................................................................................... 14General Discussion with Management ........................................................................................... 14Exhibits Collected ........................................................................................................................... 15Attachments .................................................................................................................................... 15Addendum to EIR- Sample Collected ............................................................................................ 16Addendum Attachments .................................................................................................................. 16SUMMARYThis was the initial inspection of this small, source plasma automated pheresis center. Theinspection was conducted in accordance with NOL-DO FY 2011 Workplans under CP 7342.002,Inspection of Source Plasma Establishments.This was a Levell inspection, which covered donor eligibility, collections and processing,quarantine/storage/disposition, testing, and quality assurance. Plasma collected is intended for noninjectableuse only, specifically for test reagents and test kit positive controls. The firm collectsplasma from disease-state, disease-associated, and high-risk om,rn"¢vP
View full review
3 comments
Guest

I have a Crohn's disease diagnosis and have only had collection at Physician's Plasma once. I have been a Crohn's patient for 32 years and have no problems whatsoever with Physician's Plasma!

I found them to be competent, aware and caring.

I am just now getting plugged into donating my material, but if I am able to do all of my collections at Physician's Plasma, I would really be happy. :grin

Guest

I saw you posting and I would like to let you know that I have been a donor for over 15 years and have never been treated better. The staff has always been very helpful and knowledgable.

I have been many places to donate plasma and when the company I donate for sent me to Physician's Plasma I had always gone to large commercial plasma centers so I did not know what to expect. But from the very first day they treated me better than I had ever been treated anywhere period. And the company that sends me there is not one that you mentioned, but they have nothing but wonderful things to say about PPA. The director there has been in the business over 20 years and is probably one of the most knowledgable people I have ever spoken to about my condition and what my plasma is being used for.

I did see the blog you mention and the first thing that popped into my head was this was a competitor. It is someone with something to gain from such a posting. No one at PPA has ever been hard to approach so I am sure if you had any questions or concerns they would be more than happy to listen to you. I have gotten to know these guys personally over the 2 and a half years I have been donating there.

You can not find any better people out there. So I definitely would not worry about donating there or where my plasma was going. Being a longterm donor I have seen many ccenters go thru FDA inspections. And I have looked them up just like you, but what I understand is that when they come into a place to inspect they just do not look at that days records and donations they go back years and look thru hunderds of entries, documents, and records.

So I would put this in perspective. I personally have NO concerns about PPA and I hope that my post might help you as well. I would just call and talk to the director and if you feel comfortable then I would continue to donate there.

They may have started out small but have grown by leaps and bounds since I have been coming there and have a really nice new facility now. Sounds like some growing pains that I am sure have already been remedied.

Guest
reply icon Replying to comment of Guest-494470

a donor for over 15 years, WOW that's great but they have not been in business for that long. :grin

View more comments (2)

Hospitals, Clinics and Medical Centers Expert Talks

4th COVID Vaccine, Monkeypox, Mask-Optional Policy

Jan 6, 2022

Who may need the 4th vaccine? Is monkeypox dangerous? Prof. Karen Jubanyik comments on the mask-optional policy, COVID booster shot, and the monkeypox.

Prof. Karen Jubanyik
Prof. Karen Jubanyik

Karen Jubanyik, MD is Associate Professor, Clinician-Educator Track, in the Department of Emergency Medicine at Yale University School of Medicine.

Why Trust Reviews on PissedConsumer?

  • Professional auto and live moderation
  • 100% user-generated content
  • Equal opportunity and protection
  • Zero tolerance for fake reviews
  • Verified content
  • PissedConsumer is on the Inc. 5000 list

For more information read Blog article