Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Malcolm Needs

    Malcolm Needs

    Supporting Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      8,471


  2. DPruden

    DPruden

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      213


  3. Byfaith

    Byfaith

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      59


  4. mollyredone

    mollyredone

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      568


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 09/27/2017 in all areas

  1. I was overthinking. Thanks for the feedback!
    1 point
  2. Think over the premise again. What is the purpose of the CAP program (or any other proficiency) ? Are you testing your facility's ability to get the correct answer (proficiency) or are you qualifying the instruments ? I would argue that it more important to "test" the operators rather than the instruments and therefore the actual instrument used is irrelevant. As a sideline.....what would happen if you got different answers with different instruments? That would be a real pickle.
    1 point
  3. I do so agree with you mollyredone. Sadly, in the UK, it is usual to have to perform a serological cross-match, using group O red cells if there is any hint of a mixed-field (even if the patient has, for example, been typed as group A for a decade, and a unit of group O blood was transfused the previous day). This pathetic attitude to the professional ethos of the laboratory personnel is insulting in the extreme, and, because the "mixed-field reactions" will be "reinforced" with each transfusion of group O red cells, if the patient requires frequent transfusions, the "discrepancy" will never be resolved, and precious group O units (in particular, group O, D Negative units) will be wasted unnecessarily. Worse still is when the patient has an alloantibody, such as an anti-Fya, when group O, Fy(a-) blood has to be selected for the group A patient (in my example), when group A, Fy(a-) blood may be readily available, leaving fewer group O, Fy(a-) units readily available for a genuine group O patient, with anti-Fya, who may require it in an emergency. Worse of all is when the patient has a complex mixture of common antibodies, or an antibody directed against a high=prevalence antigen, when there are only a certain number of group O units available in the country (and less donors, as numerous cryopreserved units may come from the same donor) and these units are wasted on patients who are patently not group O. RANT OVER - FOR NOW!!!!!!!
    1 point
  4. The way I read this, is "if discrepancies exist". Not if discrepancies existed (in the past). So if you have a discrepancy and resolve it, it does not exist anymore. So if you can't resolve the discrepancy currently with other techniques, a serologic crossmatch would be required, but if you followed through with your procedure to resolve the discrepancy, it is no longer a discrepancy.
    1 point
  5. I doubt our computer could do this either (Cerner). I am puzzled by the requirement even when the discrepancy is resolved - it would seem to me it no longer "exists" once a valid typing is performed, or it is confirmed that an Rh Pos patient got Rh Neg blood. Any other thoughts on this?
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.