Jump to content
PathLabTalk

John C. Staley

Members
  • Content Count

    1,434
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    144
  • Country

    United States

Everything posted by John C. Staley

  1. Somebody was sure digging through the archives to find this one! Glad to see. This was probably one of my first posts. To be honest, I don't remember if we ever went with the second type but I imagine we did knowing the corporate QA team at the time. I do believe that anything short of a second draw is little more than smoke and mirrors to show compliance with some mandate.
  2. That's a new one to me. I'm with Kelly, positive is positive as long as it matches the forward type. If not, let the investigation begin!
  3. Personally I don't see a problem here but I sure can't site any regulations, rules or even precedence that would help. Of course it bothers all the blood bankers, I would be very surprised if it didn't. It involves a change and that always makes us uncomfortable. I suggest sitting down and trying to come up with what, exactly, makes everyone uncomfortable if you haven't already. Then weigh those concerns on the real vs imagined scale and see what you come up with. Just thoughts from an old guy that's been there.
  4. At one of my facilities we had a group of O neg donors that would come in on a regular basis and these folks were designated as out Neonate Donors. I think at the time we would set them aside exclusively for the neonates for a week and if they were not needed during that week we would move them to the general population. We would ask regular O neg donors if they could come in on a schedule so they could be used for the babies. When most understood that their blood would be designated for the newborns little else had to be said to get them on board.
  5. Just a thought. With an issue like this you have to come to a point of realizing that you can only do so much especially when much of the process is out of your control. You can drive yourself crazy playing the "what if " game! Once you've done the best you can for your situation then accept that there will probably be a fallible human somewhere in the process who will come up with a creative work around. A nurse will put a unit in the medication refrigerator until she's ready for it or they will put it back in the cooler in OR after it's been setting next to the patient during the procedu
  6. Interesting topic, we had a 32 bed NICU and I don't remember ever transfusing platelets. I'll be interested in any responses.
  7. I used something similar but about 30 years older!!! Glad to see it's been up graded. I had a number of inspectors that did not like it because they had never seen anything like it. They couldn't say to much about it, I had all the records showing it was verified just like all the rest of my thermometers on the same schedule.
  8. I've been searching for the powerpoint I made of the occurrence I wanted to share but I must have stored it on an external hard drive that crashed and was unrecoverable. (That's my excuse anyway.) Consequently it was long ago and my memory is fuzzy on the details but in this case the details is not the point I'm attempting to convey. Bottom line was that 2 units of blood were sent via pneumatic tube to ICU for 2 different patients. No, the units were not in the same tube, they were sent 10-15 minutes apart. The units went to the wrong patients and the proper patient identification protocol
  9. It's good to be famous and remembered!!
  10. When tube testing was all we had, my moto was; "when in doubt, shake it out!" One of the first things I did as transfusion supervisor at a new facility was convince the medical director that we needed to stop using the microscope for routine testing. It was much harder to convince the rest of the staff. I couldn't remove the microscopes from the department because we were doing KBs at the time and I'm pretty sure a few of the "older" staff still used them for routine testing when I wasn't looking. Once again inertia is proven to be the most powerful force in the universe!
  11. I had always found it difficult to convince nurses that we were working with a person/patient and not a room/bed! This became even more difficult after all the privacy rules and regulations came about. It was almost as if they were terrified to say a patient's name aloud!
  12. I especially like the way you phrased it as "transfusion error stories" and not transfusion horror stories. Looking back I sometimes think I could write a book on the subject. Well, maybe not a book but at least a novella! Some of the stories would be comical and others terrifying. Luckily, in over 35 years in the business none of my stories are fatal but a few had the potential.
  13. Regardless of all the possible causes along the way the ultimate human failure occurred at the bed side!! People are probably getting tired of me saying this but as long as there are humans involved in a process human error will occur. All we can hope to accomplish is minimizing both the number of times it occurs and the resulting ramifications.
  14. Sadly, I can't open the attachment of the answer. I was hoping to see what was considered "critical thinking". From the responses of others it would appear I am not missing much. Carry on folks.
  15. Not to be too nit picky but while 72 hours is 3 days, depending on who is counting and why, 3 days could be anywhere between 48 hours 1 minute and 72 hours. Just thought I'd mention that. Glad you got the computer figured out. It can be no easy task.
  16. I would also like to see the definition of critical thinking used by the original question setter. That might help trying to understand what they were getting at. I know from past question writing experience for students, that an answer which I considered so blindingly obvious was in fact not anything of the sort.
  17. Malcolm's answer seems reasonable but I'm with you that all the original question does for me is lead to more questions and no answer. Such as; what does "Investigation of the label issued at the blood bank verified the unit's correct labeling." actually mean?? Was this a real case or just something someone made up?
  18. My only recommendation is, what ever process you decide on, keep it as simple as possible. On first thought I would keep everything in-house. By that I mean you do all the testing and transporting. At least with these patients you know they will be transfused and the chance of a unit being wasted is very small. It may not be convenient but it is simple.
  19. I have no answers to your questions but instead have a question for you. Are you aware of any bad outcomes which could have been the result of the practice at your facility?
  20. Is there someplace local that can do flow cytometry for you. I never understood why everyone thought KBs are so difficult. We were forced to stop doing KBs and send out for flow cytometry by the corporate transfusion service medical director. I have my suspicions why but I won't voice them here. We never had any issues with doing the KBs and we really didn't do all that many.
  21. Where was that when I was still working!!! Would have worn it to work everyday.
  22. Couple of more strange questions, how sure are you that it is anti-Jka? If you are sure, why were you doing a ficin panel? Can't wait to see what Malcolm has to say.
  23. I guess I've been out for too long, what is "pathogen reduced platelets"? If I remember correctly we used to refer to leuko filtered RBCs as reduced risk for CMV but I don't remember doing anything for platelets.
  24. Thanks Malcolm, I'm sure the acknowledgements are both prestigious and well earned. Again, congratulations.
×
×
  • 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.