Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. AMcCord

    AMcCord

    Members


    • Points

      2

    • Posts

      2,105


  2. John C. Staley

    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      1,552


  3. galvania

    galvania

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      885


  4. Kathyang

    Kathyang

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      107


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 07/07/2020 in all areas

  1. Strange. The Direct Antiglobulin Test has been around since 1946, and this is the first time that I have heard that IgG antibodies will NEVER cause agglutination to the naked eye. IgG ABO antibodies cause agglutination visible to the naked eye all the time, as do many examples of IgG anti-M and other specificities. Sorry, but I rather think you could be wrong here.
    1 point
  2. AMcCord

    Validation studies

    A magnification aid is optional for N-Hance. It could be an agglutination viewer, rather than a microscope.
    1 point
  3. Just curious, but why even have a card catalog at all? That was the first thing I got rid of when we computerized my last blood bank. It took about a year, if I remember correctly, to move all the old info from the paper records into the computer. One thing we did was research each patient that we had not seen in over a year to see if they were deceased or assumed they were if over 100 years old and not seen for a certain period of time. It made no sense to fill space in the computer with patients who were obviously no longer with us.
    1 point
  4. Do keep us updated. I am sure we are all looking forward to news of a healthy baby
    1 point
  5. No we don't use the microscope.
    1 point
  6. I'd say that you have to consider the capabilities of your staff. I do ask my techs to use the microscope for DATs. They are all generalists and their time in blood bank is limited. Some of them shake too hard, in spite of my best efforts to fix that problem. They use a mirror, but some don't use a mirror well. So, in order to not miss weak positive reactions they use the scope with a tube roller. We also have a definition for microscopic agglutination (right out of the Technical Manual) that says it is a clump of 4-5 cells (though I do tell them that they should be cautious with this - if tests look suspicious, check them out, don't blindly ignore what you see). When I train, I stress the difference between a clump of cells that are friendly/kissing and a clump of cells that 'love each other' (agglutination). They do very well - false positives are rare. I don't see a lot of unnecessary work being done.
    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.