galvania

Galvania, with all do respect I just came off of the site, PubMed, US National Library of Medicine, National Institute of Health, article, Severe Hemolytic Disease of the New Born Caused by Anti-M. They confirm your statement that Anti-M is considered clinically insignificant and then go on to describe a case where a newborn female had to be exchange transfused X3 before they realized that the rbc demise was being caused by an Anti M. This is a rare case where an Anti M was not caught early. How much do you think the extra care needed here cost as compared to a tube panel read at all phases with an Auto control? I can only imagine that the extra is sky-rocketing more in cost as compared to a tube panel and auto control; and it is the frequency of performing this testing with these specific cases which determine the actual expense; and they are directly related; the of these cases you have the more of this testing to be done. What do we make of all of this?

I have read Transfusion Reaction from the AABB a long time ago. Within the first charter I was struck with the extreme rarity and extreme outcomes as given by the number of case per overall population alone. Blood Bank has come such a long way, as you know, in terms of preventing transfusion related problems such that the existing problems are all extremely rare. I realize a very expensive price tag on generation a work flow based on rare events but I also know of the legal costs when they occur. Which is more expensive? It would depend on the case. These are dilemmas that course through my mind when reading the cases here and the following posts. What can we make of all of this? It is an extreme dilemma. I have some idea of the operational costs associated with covering rare events, and I know it is expensive, but I do not know how they compare to the legal costs. Nor do I know of the frequency of these legal costs.