Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. John C. Staley

    • Points

      2

    • Posts

      1,550


  2. AMcCord

    AMcCord

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      2,105


  3. Joanne P. Scannell

    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      279


  4. RichU

    RichU

    Members


    • Points

      1

    • Posts

      48


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/15/2021 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 agree with those who 'don't bother' with the actual math ... between 'natural selection' and blood suppliers 'holding' certain antigen types, exact math is just an academic exercise. To be practical (considering tech time and reagents are valuable commodities): If the patient's plasma contains demonstrable antibody, crossmatch a batch or two of units then do the antigen typing on the compatible units only. No luck = order antigen-neg from the supplier. If the patient's plasma is negative, then screen (highest frequency first) a batch or two of units. Again, No luck = order antigen-neg from the supplier.
    1 point
  3. All the talk about statistics is great but in the real world you never know: I once screened over 30 units for K. All were positive. As I was the night guy, the day folks were laughing until they got the same results. All we could figure is the blood center was screening for K and shunted all the +s to a shelf which we received in bulk. I've also screened for Fya in past. Once i screened 4 units and found 2. The next time I had to screen 16 and the last 2 were negative. As I said, the stats look good but reality is sometimes a bit different.
    1 point
  4. RichU

    Newly detected anti-D

    No products/components since 2016 (see my previous post) TO OUR KNOWLEDGE. Being a small island nation, patients quite often get treatment in the UK which we don't know about and vice versa - very helpful. So he may have had D pos platelets. I think it unlikely he had D pos red cells for a planned procedure. We did XM 4 units (O neg) in 2016 but none were required. Thanks all
    1 point
  5. Pay now or pay later. I'd look at the volume of testing you plan to do on it, and the amount of hands on time required. We have a busy lab and two IH-1000. Most staff are comfortable running the two by themselves (and in this staffing environment we're all facing - that good ), some staff like assistance. Reagent cost - lease, reagent rental, outright purchase? Reliability Responsiveness of the company. Annual maintenance requirements? So much more to consider than the initial cost.
    1 point
  6. My Echo is 13 going on 14 years old. It's been very reliable, service has been good. I will be upgrading to a new instrument next year to avoid a surcharge on our contract because we are running such an elderly analyzer. I switched us from manual gel (which we used for about 8 years) because I was tired of weak antibody reactions that required PeG/tube to resolve. Solid phase has worked well with our patient population.
    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.