Ensis01

Agree with AMcord; we also learnt to check how and where the temperature was taken, i.e. ensure the same method and location was used before and during transfusion. We would sometimes see first temp under the armpit, second oral and so on. Catch this early and several febrile reaction workups were avoided, often enough to be worth the effort of checking the method.

Thank you

Malcom, you replied to Liz’s question that the chance of the patient developing anti-A1 was almost zero due to immunosuppression followed by accommodation. Am I correct in assuming the immunosuppression is due to the drugs transplant patients take? I had never heard of "accommodation" and my quick google search suggests that accommodation occurs when a transplanted organ has normal function despite the presence of alloantibodies. These antibodies are capable of binding to the antigen and activating compliment, but for some reason they don't. My search went on to state that accommodation is more likely if the antibodies are removed (temporarily) by plasma exchange just prior to transplant, which has resulted in several successful ABO-incompatible transplants!!!! It seems reasonable that variability in an individual’s accommodation potential exists. Is it a stretch to link accommodation to the variability in individuals forming (or not forming) antibodies. Are the ramifications known? For example if an individual has a high degree of accommodation, i.e. good for transplants and transfusion; does it mean having an immune system that may not be as effective at identifying and killing pathogens? Understanding accommodation seems useful for the immunohematology field as well as organ transplant, yet this is the first I have heard of it. If you could please provide further explanation or references I (and I would guess others) would appreciate it.

I am confused because if/when a unit of blood goes to the nursery: how does blood get into the set? How does a presumably disposable uncalibrated infusion set calculate the amount of blood to be transfused? How is the change in product code and expiry date modified and documented or is the remaining blood just wasted? How and who determines that the correct amount of blood was given? Why would these, I assume, blood specific infusion sets be in the nursery? Am I missing something?

4 hours from issue in BB LISS. As the BB generally assumes audit responsibility it removes ambiguity.

Minimum requirement is to present the patients name and MR# in writing. This ensures there is no confusion as to who the blood is for as there could be other emergent situations occurring. In this type of situation written can be on the RN's hand, glove, post-it note etc. If patients name and MR# not brought with them in a written form they call for the info, write it down and present to tech.

Google the report (page 9) "Fatalities Reported to FDA Following Blood Collection and Transfusion Annual Summary for FY2015". Where it states "The number of non-ABO hemolytic transfusion reactions represents a count unchanged with four cases in both FY2014 and FY2015 (Table 3). These cases are comparatively less preventable as seen in FY2015, where all cases were transfusions due to emergent need, and antibody history was not always known." The less preventable part refers to a death due to ABO HTR that resulted from a mislabeled specimen. Table 3 shows 6 deaths in 2011, 5 deaths in both 2012 and 2013 due to non-ABO HTRs. I would hope presenting an FDA report to the "powers that be" provides an evidence based reason for them to enforce or at least encourage prompt sample collection and delivery to the BB. Please note that the report is more detailed and useful than my (simplistic) paraphrasing.

It would be possible, though time consuming, to set-up everything electronically using Microsoft Access. You create Excel based spread sheets to store and manipulate data (e.g. expiry dates), forms to enter the data and reports that display/print out the data. So like LIS systems you assign different levels of user, some can only view reports (results), some can also enter data via forms and administrators can change forms/reports but nobody can change the actual data. Forms used to enter data can include dropdown only options, numbers only, text only etc. I have used one described above but I did not set it up. It was set up for equipment QC and maintenance but I can see the potential with what spavlis is asking. However to do it well you would need someone who is good with Access, time, and have a good idea with what you need it to do. As long as the essential data is entered the forms and reports can evolve, the only thing changing would be how (forms), not what was entered and how the results were displayed (reports). If going to this level it probably makes sense to only enter data electronically (no paper forms). You can however create reports that can be geared towards inspectors, bench techs, managers, down time and disaster box etc., this can also include the reports expiry date. For example a report listing the reagents QCed so far today or for a specific date. I hope this gives the idea that I believe it is possible to have total electronic documentation in the BB including providing the downtime and disaster forms (printed before needed!!). There will however be many obstacles to overcome, inertia probably the biggest. But as most labs already have a LIS is this not only an extension of that?!

tkakin; you said that you crossmatch with "the adsorbed plasma and the neat plasma". Your post also indicates that the reference lab does the adsorptions/workup. To me doing both makes sense if the reference lab does the workup and crosmatches with the adsorbed plasma, sends you the units and report. You then crossmatch using the neat plasma of the current specimen (also ensuring reactions less than or equal to the auto control). If however you are doing the adsorbtions in-house I can see no reason to crossmatch with adsorbed and neat plasma.

Quick wipe down after every use (Cavi wipes) if not bloody. Disinfect thoroughly quarterly or if bloody. OR are meant to return coolers clean i.e. No blood but does occur.

Plan for the worst and hope for the best.

I would plan to be prepared in two basic areas . First an increase in "normal" transfusion work resulting in a gradually increasing backup on all or certain shifts. This may just require enforcing a clear and ruthless work prioritization and accept a later catchup on shifts not used to that work. If you have regular spikes in work flow this may not be that big a problem, if not please note that for many techs this increasing backup can be perceived as a spiraling loss of control that can fluster and create confusion, at best it reduces efficiency. An extra body just answering the phone can be a blessing. Secondly potential issue is a large incident like a coach crashing; there is a post on this site recently(ish) describing this type of scenario and outcome much better than I could. Make a prioritization list and discuss with techs; do what first, second etc. Include max wait times for routines as that can be a trigger to call in help. Discuss experiences and expectations this thread will expose. Many here will be familiar with using the phrase (or variation of): "unless your patient is bleeding out on your shoes they are routine." Highlight that busier it gets above your normal the less efficiently many can work. Have a list of all tech cell phone numbers (ensure current) posted in logical place and give heads up they MAY be called. Define criteria of when techs should be called in. Investigate blood suppliers expected inventory and how soon can they import stock if needed (if the fan gets dirty). Make sure disaster box is current. Other posts have shown that a tech banding patients in the ED and organizing BB samples saves confusion and time. I would assume (hope) there will be meetings to discuss the expected impact, though other threads have indicated that learning the hard way seems to be the norm. I an curious to hear if the majority of solar eclipse watchers can be categorized as "party animal dreuids", or serious and lugging expensive telescopes.

Two screen cells for gel and tube. It was changed from three for cost reasons.

I'm not trying to be funny; but if Ortho requires the lab to QC the panel periodically why do the panels have an expiry date. I mean it has been pointed out in several threads that the manufacturers QC and stability testing and requirements must far exceed what a lab could do or be expected to do. Am I missing something?

I am enjoying this interesting discussion.