Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Joanne P. Scannell

    • Points

      2

    • Posts

      279


  2. Malcolm Needs

    Malcolm Needs

    Supporting Members


    • Points

      2

    • Posts

      8,471


  3. John C. Staley

    • Points

      2

    • Posts

      1,550


  4. Ensis01

    Ensis01

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      285


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/14/2021 in all areas

  1. As Joanne mentioned above, no system is fool proof and there are lots of creative, inventive fools to prove it. Keep your system as simple as possible which should minimize the need for creative people to find ways around it. Now to your question, does it actually help prevent problems? Probably a few but certainly not all! I've seen people become lax in their diligence when they assume they are protected by the system. They seem to assume that if they make a mistake someone down the line with catch it. This is something to be avoided if possible. The only way that I know of to prevent this type of mind set from developing is through education and convincing everyone involved in the process that their step is critical and by keeping it simple they will be more likely to perform their step as instructed.
    2 points
  2. I always 'balk' at this idea because as we all know, the probability of two patients having the same blood type is high. We have had a few instances over the past few years where a wrong patient was drawn (we use BB Bands so it's very obvious) and they were the same blood type but one had antibodies and the other didn't. And yes, there are those who have had to come up with 'defensive measures' to 'assure' that there is no 'cheating', e.g. RN draws 2 samples and holds one in case the BB asks for a second, a witness (do you really think that happens as intended?), different colored tubes for the second draw (assuming they don't draw the wrong patient twice). I could go on and on about this ... but that wasn't your question, was it?
    2 points
  3. Guidelines in Australia are pretty similar to the UK guidelines as far as I can see. https://anzsbt.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/GuidelinesforTransfusionandImmunohaematologyLaboratoryPractice_1ed_Nov20_.pdf They require as well a second ABO typing.
    1 point
  4. The US has many different organizational blood suppliers. While some organizations are national like the American Rec Cross (ARC) there are many regional and even local organizations. In my experience, each center has their own screening policy, which is determined by their hospitals requirements. A region with a high sickle cell population may send all (or most) new African American donors for molecular testing, while other regions may only screen units when specificities are needed. So, when a blood center has an aggressive screening policy, or when they are looking for specific phenotype may affect the frequencies hospitals encounter. This explains Cliff’s and my experience described above. Also, the local donor population, and/or if (and when) the blood center imports units from a different region may impact the antigen frequencies hospitals encounter . As described by other posters above, I use the antigen frequencies to primarily determine the order in which to screen antigens and to manage expectations. For example, when I need to screen for R2R2 K- units there is an approximate expectation of 2%. I would therefore screen batches of 100 units; on one occasion I found zero units, on another 9 units with the norm being between 1 and 3 units. I am jealous screening for R2R2 K- units (or any Rh combo) would not be needed in the UK!!
    1 point
  5. Guidelines for pre‐transfusion compatibility procedures in blood transfusion laboratories - - 2013 - Transfusion Medicine - Wiley Online Library This is a link to the UK Guideline that talks about two samples being typed. All of the BSH Guidelines are evidence-based.
    1 point
  6. I am going to be EXTREMELY controversial here, but I really don't understand why, if the cross-match is compatible, anyone would bother to type for the Cw antigen. I would be happy if someone could direct me to a RELIABLE paper that has shown anti-Cw to be clinically significant as far as an acute or delayed haemolytic transfusion reaction is concerned. I am aware of one paper in which it was claimed that anti-Cw caused hydrops in a pregnancy, but, for reasons I have given before, I do not regard this paper as reliable. The same goes for an anti-M that is not proven to work at strictly 37oC, and many other specificities. One only has to read the three editions of the FactsBook to see that there are numerous antibody specificities that are absolutely benign (unless your name is Lyndall Molthan - see Issitt PD. Applied Blood Group Serology. 3rd edition, 1985, Montgomery Scientific Publications, page 433. Anyone who cannot get hold of this is welcome to read my signed edition, but you'll have to give me £1 million as security, so that I get it back!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    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.