Ensis01

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

The IT department and software company should be jointly setting up and validating. You explain in excruciating detail to your IT people what you need and they make sure it can / will be done. Find out how imported history will be displayed and will there be a difference between imported and entered data. For example will special needs be imported as a comment or as a hard stop. Will comments have a maximum number of characters per comment or in total. ABO subgroups etc. What I am saying is; more important than percentages (as most are straight forward) find a variety of unusual patient histories and check with IT and the software rep to ensure their history will be imported to your satisfaction. Once imported you are stuck. There is a strong argument not to import. This will allow a clean database that you know is consistent and accurate. When you do a history search you search the old system and put a comment in the new system saying search done, information transcribed, date and initials of who did the search. If you are cautious you cold set up a policy of two history searches and the old system then need not be searched.

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

I just answered this question. My Score PASS  

My experience is that interference from rouleaux and cold autoantibodies in Gel is not unusual but this may depend on your patient population. As rouleaux is not an antibody an AHG crossmatch is not required. If you IS crossmatch you must (in my opinion) saline replace so you show any agglutination is interference and can therefore enter a negative/compatible/non-reactive result into your LISS, probably with a comment.

The was a thread about this recently you could start with: https://www.pathlabtalk.com/forum/index.php?/topic/10288-typenex-bands-should-they-stay-or-should-they-go/&tab=comments#comment-77667

Not sure if this response is too late. After your new hires receive 6 weeks training and pass the test are they then expected to be competent in your blood Bank? What exactly are they expected to be able to deal with? My opinion (and experience in a similar setting) is that you have trained your new hires in the theory of your Blood Bank; the next 3 (probably more) months will/should provide practical training in how to use those skills in practice, increasing complexity and especially under pressure.