In brief

  • A 24-hour deadline, introduced for the first time. The transfusion and haemovigilance committee of every hospital that uses blood must send the alert report within no more than 24 hours of the emergence of any suspicion of an incident or of a serious adverse reaction. Until 12 October 2026, the rules required only that the report be sent, with no deadline whatsoever.
  • The alert goes to three recipients, not two. Alongside the county haemovigilance coordinator, that is the county blood transfusion centre, the report now goes to the State Health Inspectorate within the Ministry of Health and to the public health control unit of the public health directorate of the county or of the municipality of Bucharest.
  • The trigger is the suspicion, not the confirmed event. The 24-hour clock starts from the suspicion, not from the establishment of the cause, so the hospital reports before it knows whether the transfusion really did cause the reaction.
  • Only two of the seven letters were rewritten. The order amends letters e) and g) of Article 6(5) of the haemovigilance rules, the first intervention on that paragraph in 6,843 days, that is after 18 years and 9 months.
Act: Order of the interim minister of health no. 1.732/2026 on the amendment of the annex to Order of the Minister of Public Health no. 1.228/2006 approving the Rules on the organisation of the haemovigilance system and on ensuring traceability, as well as the Regulation on the system for recording and reporting the occurrence of serious adverse events and reactions linked to the collection and administration of human blood and blood components
Published: Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 854 of 12 October 2026, page 15
In force from: 12 October 2026. Article II of the order provides only for publication in the Official Gazette of Romania (Monitorul Oficial), with no later date, and Article 12(3) of Law no. 24/2000 on legislative drafting rules ties the entry into force of ministerial orders to the date of publication whenever their own text sets no other date.

From 12 October 2026, a hospital that transfuses blood has no more than 24 hours in which to report any suspicion of an incident or of a serious adverse reaction. The deadline is new. Until that date, the haemovigilance rules required the hospital’s transfusion and haemovigilance committee to send the alert report, but did not say within what time, and the only indication of pace was the word „rapid” in the title of the form. Order of the interim minister of health no. 1.732/2026, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 854 of 12 October 2026, puts a figure where there used to be an adjective.

Haemovigilance is the surveillance of the entire journey of donated blood, from the donor’s arm to the transfused patient, together with the duty to record and report whatever goes wrong along the way. In the Romanian system, the link at the patient’s bedside is the transfusion and haemovigilance committee, which operates in every hospital that uses blood and blood components and is made up of the medical director, a delegate of the county blood transfusion centre, the coordinator of the hospital transfusion unit and staff representatives. It is this committee that receives the 24-hour deadline. Neither the donor nor the patient takes on any obligation under this order; what changes is the speed at which information about a transfusion accident leaves the hospital.

What it changes in practice

The order has a single substantive article, Article I, which rewrites letters e) and g) of Article 6(5) of the annex to Order of the Minister of Public Health no. 1.228/2006, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 870 of 24 October 2006. That paragraph lists seven duties of the hospital transfusion committee, from checking the patient’s medical record to taking part in epidemiological investigations. Two of them, the ones concerning the sending of reports outside the hospital, are replaced.

Letter e) covers the alert, that is the first signal. The committee now sends the reports drawn up in accordance with Part A of Annex no. 3 and Part A of Annex no. 4 to the 2006 rules, the two rapid notification forms, one for serious adverse reactions in the recipient, the other for serious adverse events arising in the chain of collection, processing, storage or distribution. What is new in the text is the phrase „within 24 hours of the emergence of any suspicion of an incident or of a serious adverse reaction”. Two words in it decide how early the clock starts: „any” and „suspicion”. No confirmation is needed, no analysis of the cause and no determination of the level of imputability, that is of the probability that the reaction can be attributed to the transfused blood. A doctor on duty having a hunch is enough for the deadline to start running.

The other letter that was rewritten, g), covers confirmation, that is the second signal, sent once the hospital has clarified what happened. Here only the list of recipients changes, on the confirmation forms in Part C of Annex no. 3 and Part B of Annex no. 4. There is no deadline here, even after the amendment.

Both letters move the reporting onto the structures that exist today. The old text sent the reports to the „county state health inspectorates and that of the municipality of Bucharest”, and letter g) also to the „public health authorities”, names that fell out of use with the successive reorganisations of the health system. The new text names the State Health Inspectorate within the Ministry of Health, the central control body, and the public health control unit within the county public health directorates and that of the municipality of Bucharest, that is the control service of the public health directorate of the hospital’s county. In practice, a hospital in Cluj now reports to the county public health directorate and, in parallel, to the ministry, instead of to a county health inspectorate that no longer bears that name.

For a patient, the useful effect is measured in reaction time, not in pages of rules. If a contaminated or mislabelled unit of blood has gone out from the same batch to other hospitals, those 24 hours are the window in which the control machinery can stop the rest of the batch. Until now, that window depended on how quickly each hospital organised its own internal procedure.

What has changed compared with the previous situation

The 2006 rules had been amended twice before this order. Order no. 1.167 of 2 July 2007, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 488 of 20 July 2007, added a new annex with definitions and renumbered the existing annexes, 1 into 2, 2 into 3, 3 into 4 and 4 into 5. Order no. 17 of 14 January 2008, published in the Official Gazette of Romania, Part I, no. 37 of 17 January 2008, rewrote exactly the same two letters, e) and g), that the 2026 order rewrites. A total of 6,843 days passed between the two interventions.

Comparing the texts shows three differences. First: letter e) used to read „shall send to the county haemovigilance coordinator and to the county state health inspectorates and that of the municipality of Bucharest the reports”, so two recipients and no deadline; it now has three recipients and a 24-hour deadline. Next: letter g) had three recipients, among them the „public health authorities”, a generic formulation; it now has three precisely named recipients, but still no deadline. Third: the references to the annexes do not change in either of the two letters, because they had already been corrected in 2008, after the 2007 renumbering.

What has not changed says just as much. Letter d) of the same paragraph requires the hospital committee to produce biannual haemovigilance evaluation reports, that is twice a year, with no submission deadline. Letter a) requires the patient’s medical record to be checked. Letter f) remains untouched and appears in the Official Gazette of Romania as a line of dots, the usual sign by which a text shows that a fragment is not being amended. And the reporting chain above the hospital, described in Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the same rules, is again given no deadline: the county coordinator passes the notification on to the regional coordinator, the latter to the national coordinator, and the national coordinator to the State Health Inspectorate, each time without any time limit written into the text.

Advantages and disadvantages

What it improves

  • It puts a verifiable figure, 24 hours, in place of a judgement call. An obligation with a deadline can be checked and penalised; one without a deadline can only be commented on.
  • It moves the threshold onto suspicion rather than confirmation, so the alert leaves the hospital before the investigation into the cause, while there is still time to block the rest of the batch of blood.
  • It updates the names of the recipients and removes the reference to structures that no longer exist under those names, a constant source of reports arriving in the wrong place.
  • It brings the State Health Inspectorate within the ministry into the hospital’s alert flow, not just into the confirmation flow, so the central control body sees the event from the outset.
  • It doubles the route, local and central, and reduces the risk that one report lost at a single link will stop the whole chain.
  • It requires no new forms: the same Part A of Annex no. 3 and Part A of Annex no. 4 are used, so hospitals need change nothing in the documents they already fill in.

What remains a problem

  • The deadline applies only to the alert under letter e). The confirmation under letter g) remains without a deadline, even though it is precisely the report that says whether the transfusion was the cause.
  • The text does not say from what objective moment the 24 hours are counted. The emergence of the suspicion need not be recorded anywhere in the file, so the start of the deadline depends on a note that someone either writes or does not write.
  • The channel of transmission is not specified. On paper, by e-mail or through an electronic platform, each option gives a different certain date of communication, and with a 24-hour deadline the difference matters.
  • The obligation runs in one direction only. The hospital has 24 hours, while the county, regional and national coordinators have no written deadline for passing the notification on.
  • The deadline carries no penalty of its own. With no consequence attached, exceeding the 24 hours is discussed at an inspection but is not treated any differently from any other breach.
  • Nothing is said about what happens if the suspicion turns out to be unfounded. There is no procedure for withdrawing the alert, so the data stay in three registers with no note that the event was disproved.
  • The rest of the 2006 rules still contain references to annexes that no longer match the 2007 numbering, and this order does not touch them.

Practical advice

  1. For hospital staff: record in the medical file the time at which the suspicion arose, not just the date. The 24 hours are counted from that moment, and without a written time neither compliance with nor breach of the deadline can be proved.
  2. For the transfusion and haemovigilance committee: update your internal procedure with the three recipients named in the new text and with their contact details, including those of the public health control unit of the county public health directorate. Procedures written before 12 October 2026 point to structures that are named differently.
  3. For hospital transfusion units: send the alert by e-mail with a read receipt, or through the registry office, with a registration number. With a 24-hour deadline, proof of the date of dispatch is worth more than the content of the form.
  4. For staff on duty: keep fillable copies of Part A of Annex no. 3, for serious adverse reactions, and of Part A of Annex no. 4, for serious adverse events, within reach. The forms have not changed, only the speed at which they must be sent.
  5. For the transfused patient: if you had a fever, a rash, chills or difficulty breathing during a transfusion or in the days that followed, ask for it to be noted in your observation chart and ask whether the report was made. Without an entry in the file, the event does not enter the surveillance system.
  6. For donors: tell the transfusion centre if in the days after donating you had an infection or received a new diagnosis. Traceability works in both directions, from donor to recipient and back, and the donated blood may still be in stock.

Frequently asked questions

Who has the duty to report within 24 hours?
The transfusion and haemovigilance committee, the body that operates in every hospital using blood and blood components. The duty belongs to the committee as a body, not to any individual doctor, but in practice the alert is drawn up on the basis of a report from the member of staff who observed the reaction.
From when are the 24 hours counted?
From the emergence of the suspicion of an incident or of a serious adverse reaction, not from its confirmation and not from the completion of the investigation. The text does not specify how that moment is established, which is why recording the time in the medical file becomes the only practical proof.
Who is the report sent to?
To three recipients: the county haemovigilance coordinator, that is the county blood transfusion centre, the State Health Inspectorate within the Ministry of Health, and the public health control unit of the public health directorate of the county or of the municipality of Bucharest.
Which forms are used?
The same ones as before: Part A of Annex no. 3 to the 2006 rules, the rapid notification form for serious adverse reactions in the recipient, and Part A of Annex no. 4, the rapid notification form for serious adverse events. No new documents appear.
Does the deadline apply to the confirmation report as well?
No. Letter g), which concerns the confirmation forms in Part C of Annex no. 3 and Part B of Annex no. 4, was amended only as regards the recipients. For confirmation there is no deadline even after 12 October 2026.
What happens if the hospital misses the deadline?
No specific penalty is laid down. A breach falls under the general control regime of the State Health Inspectorate and of the control units of the public health directorates, the very bodies that are now the recipients of the report.
Does anything change for the blood donor?
Not directly. The donor takes on no new obligation and need do nothing differently when donating. Indirectly, a signal that leaves the hospital sooner shortens the time within which a suspect donation can be traced to the other components obtained from it.

Errors and inconsistencies in the published text

  • Article I, read against letter a) of Article 6(5) of the annex to Order no. 1.228/2006. After the amendment, letter e) refers to Part A of Annex no. 3 and to Part A of Annex no. 4, while letter a), left untouched in the same paragraph, requires the patient’s medical record to contain the documents in Annex no. 1 and, where applicable, in Annex no. 2 Part A and Annex no. 3 Part A. In the numbering that resulted from the renumbering carried out by Order no. 1.167/2007, Annex no. 1 is the list of definitions and Annex no. 2 is the list of traceability data and has no Part A at all. The hospital committee is thus given, within the same paragraph, two different indications as to which form it fills in and where it keeps it, and one of them points to a division that does not exist. The inconsistency predates this order, but the order rewrites precisely the letters that make it visible and does not close it.

Editorial analysis

The order does one good thing and does it by halves. The 24-hour deadline is the only new figure in the whole text and it is placed exactly where it mattered, on the alert that leaves the hospital. The problem is the asymmetry between the two letters rewritten in the same breath. Letter e), the alert, gets a deadline. The confirmation, under letter g), gets nothing, even though it is the report that establishes whether the transfusion was the cause and that feeds the national haemovigilance database. A surveillance system that learns quickly that something happened but may learn why at any time produces statistics with an indeterminate lag and loses precisely the part that is useful for prevention.

The second observation emerges from counting the deadlines across the whole chain, not from reading the order. The hospital has 24 hours. The county haemovigilance coordinator, who passes the notification on to the regional level under Article 5 of the rules, has no deadline. The regional coordinator, under Article 4, has no deadline. The National Institute of Blood Transfusion, the national coordinator, which passes the notification on to the State Health Inspectorate under Article 3, has no deadline. The only figure for pace in the whole chapter remains the one imposed on the lowest link. The comparison with the neighbouring obligation under letter d) makes it even more visible: the same committee sends biannual evaluation reports, that is roughly once every 4,380 hours, with no submission deadline, while for the alert it has 24. The ratio between what the administration demands of the hospital and what it demands of itself cannot even be calculated in this chapter, because the second figure is missing.

The third observation is one of textual hygiene. The 2007 renumbering of the annexes left behind references that have never been corrected. Article 14 of the rules states that the types of serious adverse reactions and events are set out in Annex no. 4, whereas after the renumbering they are in Annex no. 5, and Annex no. 4 is the form for reporting events. Article 15 declares that Annexes nos. 1-4 form an integral part of the rules, although there are five annexes, which formally leaves outside the rules precisely the list of types of reaction to which Article 14 refers. Letter f) of Article 4 and letter f) of Article 5 refer to Annex no. 2 Part D and to Annex no. 2 Part B respectively, divisions that no longer exist under those numbers. That makes at least five references left behind in the very act that the 2026 order opens in order to change two letters. An amending order arriving after 18 years and 9 months could have repaired all of them with the same drafting effort.

Then there is the question from which any short deadline starts: from where is it counted. The emergence of a suspicion is a medical fact, not an administrative act, and the rules attach to it no duty to record the time. At an inspection carried out six months later, the inspector compares the date of the report with what is in the observation chart, and there may be no time written there at all. In the absence of an objective moment, the 24-hour deadline becomes hard to verify in both directions, both for the body carrying out the inspection and for the hospital that wants to show it complied.

What should be changed

  1. A deadline for confirmation as well. The confirmation report under letter g) should be given a window of its own, say 15 days from the close of the investigation into the cause; otherwise the second report is left to each hospital’s judgement and the national database fills up unevenly.
  2. A compulsory recorded starting point. The rules should require the date and time at which the suspicion arose to be noted in the medical file, so that the 24-hour deadline has a verifiable starting point rather than a later estimate.
  3. Deadlines for the upper links too. Articles 3, 4 and 5 of the rules should be given windows of their own, say 24 hours for each step of transmission, so that the alert reaches the central level within a predictable time, not merely leaves the hospital quickly.
  4. An explicitly named channel of transmission. The text should state the method of sending and the proof of date, either an official e-mail address with a read receipt or a dedicated platform, so that compliance with the deadline does not depend on each unit’s practice.
  5. Correction of the references left over from 2007. Article 14, Article 15, letter a) of Article 6(5), letter f) of Article 4 and letter f) of Article 5 should be brought into line with the actual numbering of the annexes, through a single amending article, so that users of the rules no longer have to work out for themselves which annex is in force.
  6. A procedure for disproving an alert. If the suspicion is not confirmed, the rules should provide how the file is closed with all three recipients; otherwise the threshold lowered to suspicion loads the control registers with events that never happened.

Original text of the legal act

The text below is reproduced in Romanian, the official form of publication.

The full text, as published in the Official Gazette of Romania

Official Gazette of Romania no. 854 of 12 October 2026, page 15 16 pages PDF, 117 KB the act starts on page 15

Open the official PDFDownload the PDF

The viewer is not shown on small screens. Use the buttons above to open or download the file.

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult a licensed attorney or tax advisor.