Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by Ensis01

  1. I am not sure how helpful this will be but my experience with scales is that your facility determines the frequency of calibration not the manufacturer because it depends on what the scale is used for and your precision and accuracy requirements. That being said one external annual calibration of a scale is good as long as there is a daily (or before use) performance check. The performance check uses your "calibrated weights". One place I worked I got the "third party" to calibrate our weights against their very accurate high quality weights just after they finished calibrating the scale.
  2. Congratulations and well deserved
  3. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  4. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  5. 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 h
  6. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  7. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  8. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  9. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  10. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  11. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  12. 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.
  13. 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
  14. 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.
  15. I just answered this question. My Score PASS  
  16. Then we do not QC new panels aside from visual inspection and any insert changes. Apart from damage in transit it seems any in-house validation is FAR less than the manufacturer must do.
  17. We don't but I assume that as we use panels for antisera QC it by default QCs the panel.
  18. One reason (maybe) is that if you are AABB accredited the Reference lab you use MAY change what they are required to reprove from the results you provide, which would reduce cost.
  19. I wholeheartedly agree with all the above comments for you to determine the surgeons expectations. One other thing we found VERY useful was asking if the patient has had prior heart surgeries, i.e. how much scar tissue was on/around the heart. We found that the more scar tissue the patient had the more products, especially RBC, would be needed.
  20. I can just imagine the conversations you may have if a patient comes to you after being titered at a different hospital and an 8 fold increase is the result
  21. I was told, by a very senior tech, that this convention began pre-automation when instances where an anti-E was identified but occasionally weakly reacting anti-c was missed. This resulted in a change in hospital policy so when the patient has an anti-E and is c= give E=,C= units. I then assume this practice spread as techs gained seniority and moved to different hospitals. The improved reagents, panel cells and especially automated methods over the last few decades, plus increased pressure with time and costs may either make this policy redundant or (remain) implemented based on your pa
  22. I just answered this question. My Score FAIL  
  • 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.