redwiner

http://www.clinlabnavigator.com/Test-Interpretations/cord-blood-studies.html

Rashimi Have you had the same problems with missed antibodies with the Echo as you do with the Galileo. We continue to have numerous problems with our Galileo. Missed antibodies, false positives, etc. redwiner

I agree, nothing is 100%, but at least with Gel we were able to have fairly consistent reactions with 'real' antibodies. Capture is so unpredicatable, and the technical support is poor.

I may have posted my original question in the wrong place. So I will rephrase & ask it here in the automation section. Has anyone else had repeated problems with the Galileo missing antibodies? Ours is very inconsistent. Our most recent issue was with a Kell. It gave a 2+ reaction on the screen, but when we ran the panel it had all negative reations except one ? (which was a Kell+) When the panel was looked at visually, the other 2 Kell positive cells were at least as positive looking as the cell the Galileo interpreted as ? The specimen was repeated in Gel and showed a perfect Kell. 2+ reactions on the heterozygous cells. We have had similar issues with other antibodies.

I just had a patient with 2+ reaction on an antibody screen on the Gallieo. The panel had all negative reactions, except for one ? reaction. When I looked at the wells visually 2 of them looked as positive as the one the Galileo interpreted as "?" All of these cells as well as the 2+ cell on the screen were Kell postive (all of these cells were heterozygous). Repeated testing in Gel. It was a perfect Kell reacting 2+ with both hetereozygous cells. Has anyone else had these type of problems with the Galileo? We have had quite a few and no explanation from the company.

The error was made in Gel, which may have contributed to the problem....since the reactions are "opposit" of those with tube. I'm always rather amazed by supposed error free techs. Are they really error free, or they just have never been caught in their mistakes? As I get older I rely much more upon my experience & instincts since there are so many more interuptions while working (phone calls, tube systems, alarms etc.) I can easily see thinking you did your saline crossmatch.

only the tech the second tech. I doubt anything happened to the first one.

well, they gave him the termination papers today. He asked if he could resign & the let him.

The patient is still okay, I really don't know how much blood was actually transfused. The tech involved (did the crossmatch) is a friend (I'm not at the same hospital). They do realized the severity of the error, but my feeling is that if we are able to learn from ours/and others mistakes that it only makes a better tech. I've worked with quite a few techs who just have no clue but have just been lucky enough not to make 'the big error' or simply it hasn't been caught.

A error was made in typing a patient (no bb computer system). First tech had done Type & Screen. Reactions of ABO were written down correctly, but interpretation was not (Patient was B neg, type interp. as A neg). Following tech repeated type when doing the IS xmatch. Type interp. erorr was repeated by 2nd tech (next line on log sheet). IS xmatch apparently was not done, or not interpreted correctly. Patient was transfused. This was a small lab, tech was working alone (also w/o a phleb, because someone had called in sick). They have been working for over 20 years without significant errors. Would you fire them?