Aim: Knowledge, attitude and practices about hemovigilance among health care professional: A cross-sectional study. Material and Methods: A total of 100 healthcare professionals participated in this study. Participants included doctors, nurses, and other relevant healthcare staff involved in blood transfusion processes. Inclusion criteria were: healthcare professionals currently working in the institution who had direct or indirect involvement in blood transfusions and provided informed consent to participate. The questionnaire was developed based on a review of existing literature and hemovigilance guidelines. It was pre-tested with a small group of healthcare professionals to ensure clarity and relevance. Revisions were made based on feedback to improve the reliability and validity of the instrument. Results: The majority of participants (85%) correctly identified that hemovigilance refers to monitoring blood transfusion reactions, with only 15% providing an incorrect response. However, when asked whether adverse reactions during transfusions are always immediate, 70% correctly answered 'False,' while 30% incorrectly believed they were always immediate. A strong majority (80%) correctly recognized that blood transfusion reactions should be reported to a specific committee, and 90% knew that all transfusion reactions must be documented in patient records.When questioned about the primary aim of hemovigilance, only 40% correctly answered 'True' that it is not solely to prevent infections, while 60% mistakenly thought it was.A significant majority (90%) either strongly agreed or agreed that hemovigilance is crucial for improving transfusion safety. Similarly, 80% of participants felt that reporting adverse reactions is an essential part of their job, with a small minority disagreeing. Confidence in the ability to report transfusion reactions was also high, with 70% of participants expressing confidence (either strongly agree or agree).The majority of participants (60%) reported that they 'always' document all transfusion reactions in patient records, with another 25% doing so 'often.' Prompt reporting of adverse transfusion reactions was practiced 'always' by 55% and 'often' by 30% of participants, indicating a high level of compliance in this area.Training attendance was regular for 50% of participants, with another 25% attending 'often.' Following up with patients after transfusion as per protocol was 'always' done by 45% of participants, and 30% did so 'often.' Lastly, 60% reported 'always' using standardized protocols for reporting transfusion reactions, while 20% did so 'often.' Conclusion: Overall, the results of this study indicate that healthcare professionals have a good understanding of hemovigilance and generally positive attitudes toward its importance in improving transfusion safety.