It's clear that some blood banks are too large to permit the occasional transfer of information between technologists and nurses. We consider this interdisciplinary dialogue to be of real value in providing safe transfusions. Also repeat types do have value. In a perfect world technologists would never be distracted from their work. However in smaller labs techs must answer phone calls, issue blood, and deal with suppliers, shipments, emergencies, etc... Handling all the details that make a transfusion service run involves a lot of interruptions, and it is not impossible to imagine a mistype due to loss of attention. Retypes are cheap insurance. I believe that CAP's new TRM.30550 reflects their espousal of some of the key principles of W. Edw. Deming, widely respected as the father of the Quality revolution. Some of those are: 1. Cease dependence on mass inspection to achieve quality. Instead, improve the process and build quality into it. 2. Break down barriers between departments. People must work as a team to foresee problems. 3. Eliminate exhortations and targets asking for zero defects. They only create adversarial relationships, as the bulk of the causes of low quality belong to the system and thus lie beyond the power of the work force. In other words, people are only human, and the best trained and intentioned individual can still make a mistake if the system is not designed to prevent it. We shall continue the search for an answer to TRM.30550, perhaps it will be the "Blood Lock" described by James AuBuchon in TRANSFUSION, Vol 46, No 7.