Jump to content
PathLabTalk

galvania

Members
  • Posts

    883
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    95
  • Country

    Switzerland

galvania last won the day on September 1

galvania had the most liked content!

About galvania

  • Birthday 05/09/1955

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Interests
    Jazz, birdwatching, gym
  • Location
    Castelletto di Vernasca, Italy
  • Occupation
    ex teacher/BMS in transfusion science. Now retired

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

galvania's Achievements

  1. And a bit more 'way out' - has he received any plasma for Covid that might have contained the anti-D?
  2. Did he not receive any blood products then in 2016?
  3. Or was the K_B positive because mum had high levels of HbF and therefore none of the injected anti-D 'used up'?...... Butlermom - where are you??????
  4. Also how strong is her anti-D at 6 months and by what technique?
  5. ..........and on the result of the reagent control you put up with it and what is wrong with the patient, if it's a man or a woman,and how old................and why you were doing the test in the first place
  6. galvania

    Retired

    oh my goodness. You poor thing. You have really been through it. I admire you for your strength. You are very brave
  7. I would just be a bit suspicious if say there was a + reaction with A1 cells and 4+ with B cells in an apparent group O - or vice versa; or very weak reactions in a young healthy adult.....a bit of common sense required, that's all
  8. or mum is a surrogate or baby is the result of an ivf with external donors
  9. to be fair techniques in the early 80s were not what they are today, neither for blood grouping nor for antibody screening/identification. Methods were not standardised. The number of drops of serum (almost always serum) to the amount of red cells could vary from 2:1 to 8:1. The concentration of the red cells could be anything from about 2% to almost 10% - and often pooled. And pooling was one of the main reason for checking under the microscope. Incubation time varied too - often depending on the length of your coffee break or lunch break. LISS was in its infancy. Washing was done by hand or with a 'Coombs washer' - 3 or 4 washes, with or without albumin. So perhaps not surprising that people were not too confident in their visual results. Much less knowledge then too about what was and what was not clinically significant. (I can remember when we treated cold anti-A1 as clinically significant) Thankfully since those dark ages things have improved massively - but sometimes some of the old habits stick - like using a microscope to read apparently negative results. The practice lives on (in some places) but the reasons for that practice died out long ago
  10. true. Should have read that more carefully. Well the answer is still - yes and no. If you are using monoclonal reagents, and assuming the anti-D has the same formula as the other reagents (barring the actual antibody obviously) then most results will have at least one negative well that can serve as a control in any case. You could just then put up a neg control on the AB+ results. But the majority of cards/cassettes do have a control on them anyway. If there's only anti-A-B-D, that's only supposed to check a group that is known i.e. has already had at least one full group with a control. But there too - only a problem if AB+. And if you are using an Rh pheno card, the control well on the grouping card is valid provided that the formula for all reagents is the same
  11. well yes and no. It would depend what the test was. The typical test not offering controls would be an antibody screen. As most of these are negative or positive with only some of the cells, this acts as its own control. Where you would need to perform a 'negative' control is if all screening cells are positive. This would be done by carrying out an auto-control with the panel. If that is positive too, however, you still won't know, in the absence of any other information, whether the patient has a true auto-antibody or whether the patient is reacting because of the potentiator in the AHG / diluent. For antigen testing, a must however, especially if tested in an IAT or with enzymes
  12. of course it could just simply be that the hospital lab made an error grouping it as a false positive. As this is a question designed for new students, I doubt whether the level of scientific understanding required is very high at this stage. It would depend what theory the students had done up until the point that the question was set
  13. Three to four a week out of how many tests? Where are you getting your cells from? Is the reaction strength the same with all cells? Are you working manually or with an automat? Have you noticed a correlation with these patients' ABO groups? Also do you have any lookback as to whether the babies of these women were jaundiced or anaemic post delivery? Or were they OK?
  14. That's awful Frenchie. So much for all the talk about our 'valued public service workers'.
×
×
  • 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.