In managing the possible consequences of this error, a quite minor, almost theoretical, risk to the safety of the blood supply, there was uncertainty about what was being managed -a recall or withdrawal. This has now been resolved in part through the authors' report (see [38] ). The term recall is now used. Clarity in identifying responses to a possible hazard is necessary. But the then uncertainty around terminology did not stop the problem from being tackled but it caused pause for thought. We note too in this intensely regulated, safetyfirst environment that conventional risk discourse -as hazard -and management as its removal or mitigation did not loom large. It is a given in this tightly knit and collegial community that patient safety is paramount. There appears to be significant levels of trust between the different groups of professionals, something not always found in hazard management settings (see [47] ). This trust and respect provide an excellent basis for existing and enhanced communication about blood hazards in these groups. Communication between parties with respect to the issue, what it means, and what responses are possible is key. It remains important to remember that there may be differences in approach to, say, discourse, or treatment and some adjustments may be required. And while the discourses are ones of engagement in this case, that does not necessarily mean that there will not be adversarial interactions over preferred management strategies and rationales, especially in the importance given to patient notification. (See [48] for a discussion of expertise and collaboration). This need for disclosure may in fact lead to a further risk management challenge. In our case, there was discussion among risk managers about risk amplification through disclosure. Research [49] has certainly shown the importance of the physician communicating risk issues to the public.