Leaderboard

I'd also like the phlebotomist to identify me correctly and label my pre-transfusion sample correctly with MY name.

We are inspected by FDA, NY State, AABB, CAP and FACT. Lots of opportunities for self-important, obsessive folks to make useless work for the people trying to take care of patients. The stories I could tell. We've also had many rational, balanced, thoughtful inspectors who clearly are only focused on the important stuff, to be fair. But a significant portion of our profession(s)' people do not realize that getting staff to focus on minutiae that will not affect patient outcomes distracts staff from doing the important things well. A well known psychologic/cognitive fact. Keep it simple and avoid worrying about unimportant stuff. The notion that documentation is more important than anything else is the most pernicious piece of rubbish in medicine, and driven by the administrative/legal model (and billing of course). And people proudly spout this nonsense as if it actually helped anyone but those in accounts receivable. I'd personally like the technologist doing my pre-transfusion testing to get the ABO and antibody screen correct as a trillion fold more important relative to them documenting what time, date or temperature all of that was done. Not to mention what that person had for lunch or dinner before the crossmatch (coming soon to an inspection near you). For the record I'm a Gemini, which I assiduously and loyally document in every interpretation and progress note I write.

I agree with the challenge. I got the same response from CAP as above within the last year or so. The person I talked to recommended that I include a statement in my SOP for method comparison that states that ABS and AB ID do not differ in methodology/utilize the same system or platform. I also attached a copy of my communication from CAP to my checklist documentation in case an inspector questions what we do.

I suggest you challenge that citation. CAP inspectors are not infallible as proven by the response from CAP above.

Since the change of platelet compatibility. What are the new acceptable Groups for an AB + recepient? Carmen

I just had this conversation with the CAP .... Here's may question and CAP's response: My question -- RE: COM.04250 Comparability of Instruments/Methods I need clarification on this for the Transfusion Service. Since antibody screen and antibody identification TESTS both use the same METHOD do you have to perform correlation on both TESTS or just on the METHOD? In other words do I have to do the CAPTURE antibody screen and compare it to the PeG screen and then also do CAPTURE antibody identification (which is the same method as the screen, just with more cells) and compare it to a PeG antibody identification (which is the same method as the screen, just with more cells)? CAP response -- If you compare the antibody screen methods, you are correct, that covers the antibody identification as well. Sincerely, Kathy Passarelli Technical Specialist, CAP The intent is to compare METHODS so if your antibody ID on the instruments are performed by the same METHOD as the antibody screen then you do not need to perform an antibody identification as part of your instrument/method comparison....just the antibody screen will suffice. Ditto for comparing your manual method, if your manual antibody identification is performed by the same method as your manual antibody screen then you just have to do the antibody screen and compare it to your instrument method.

I don't perform comparative studies on antibody IDs. Only ABORh and Ab Screen. Never been a problem. I do compare my primary gel with PeG and LISS screens since I have been known to use these reagents sporadically. (CAP Team Leader, 20+ yrs). Who's opinion? I think you are correct in your interp of that standard. I'm not comparing the different techniques used in abids.