jayinsat

We are evaluating this as well. It will be an emergency release product only meaning no pre-transfusion testing. If our patients have a current Type and Screen or have already been transfused, they will not receive whole blood. We will stock O pos Low Titer whole blood that will be given to Adult men and woman >50, only for hemorrhagic shock. We do not receive traumas at our facility. Currently, our EMS ambulances and helicopters stock the O pos Low Titer whole blood and administer it en-route. They do not do any pre-transfusion testing. Our trauma centers are the same. Whole blood is issued as emergency issue only without pre-transfusion testing. Post-transfusion monitoring for hemolysis is done per AABB recommendation.

Reviving a dead post.... I am growing increasingly concerned about staffing shortages in the Blood Bank. I'm in Texas and most of our good techs are aging out of the field. It is almost impossible to find and experienced blood bankers that are not already working full time somewhere. Filling positions with techs that have blood bank or micro experience is HARD! New techs are not staying in the field and lack the experience to work alone. At 51, I am at least 10 years younger than blood bank staff on all shifts and am worried about filling those roles over the next 5-10 years. What are your experiences?

I had been a MLT (ASCP) since 1991 and recently completed my Bachelor's degree. I have worked exclusively blood bank for the last 12 years. I wrestled with whether to take the BB (ASCP) or the MT (AMT). I went with the MT (AMT) because the hospital systems here in San Antonio prefer the more generalist MT level certification for supervisory and off-shift positions. My HR department said they would only be able to hire me at the MT level for BB only if I went that way. Having an extensive generalist background, I decided MT (AMT) was the best option for me. I used LabCE's Medialab practice tests and Patsy Jerreau's CLS Review to prepare for the exam. I studied about 2 months and passed first time around on November 30th 2017.

We have always done our own calibrations. We use the PCS 2 system that is shared between our sister hospitals. It's cheap and easy to use.

We just went live 3 weeks ago in 5.67. We chose to keep all significant except Cold-Auto, passive C,D,E's and Warm-Auto's with no underlying significant ab's. As has been said, the current antibody screen must be negative in all cases. We love it btw.

Yes I have for both our automation and back up methods. Any methodology, or change in methodology, used in blood bank must be validated before it is implemented. That means, you must run tests using the new method in parallel with the old method and prove that it yields acceptable accurate results, sensitivity and specificity. After that initial validation, you only need to perform QC on a daily basis.

We have an antibody "Passive Anti-D" that we report if we have identified a recent Rhogam injection.

I say change your SOP to match your practice, as long as it has been validated, passes daily QC and doesn't contradict manufacturers requirements. I don't know of any transfusion services that wash the cell suspensions routinely anymore.

You state that the patient isn't on any thrombocytopenia meds. Does that include WinRHO or RhoGAM? Is the patient being followed for thrombocytopenia? I'm sure you're aware that WinRHO (which is ANTI-D) is a common treatment for ITP when the patient is RH Positive and has not had a splenectomy.

We don't use anything in ours. Although we are a small 175 bed hospital, we do an inordinate amount of plasma exchanges here. I'm talking 3-5/week with a minimum of 3 liters each! With all that thawing, we are bound to have a unit break about every 10 days making us have to clean it out each time. For some reason, our Heme/Onc prefers FFP over albumin for all his TPE's, regardless of diagnosis.

What methodology are you using for antibody screening and identification? Is there a significant rate of unexpected positive reactions with this methodology? That helps determine how far down that rabbit hole I will travel.

Tricore, pathogen inactivation alters the DNA of pathogens AND lymphocytes, which greatly decreases the probability of Graft v Host. It has become an acceptable alternative to irradiated platelets.

We had a situation like this recently. A patient was sent to our hospital from a near by free standing minor Emergency Room for direct admission and transfusion of RBC'S due to low H&H. The minor Emergency Room reported a hgb below 6.0. I don't recall the exact number. Normally, these orders aren't questioned and the blood is prepared as requested. In this case, the night shift supervisor, uncharacteristically, questioned the order and insisted the floor send down a new CBC for confirmation. The patient's Hgb was above 11.0! That makes you question your policies for sure.

It's been years since i've worked in a donor center so my knowledge of what goes on today is a bit out of date (1980's was the last time). What is done differently in the UK that allows hospitals and transfusion centers to skip the confirmation of the donor blood type? From my memory, each donor unit was typed by two separate technologists at two separate times before the unit was labeled with a blood type. Those results were also compared to historical records for the donor (if they weren't new). Is there something else that is done there? I don't understand how the donor facilities could be able to affect a change in this policy as long as they are in compliance with FDA, CAP, AABB etc standards. Wouldn't lobbying AABB and CAP be the way to go?