Malcolm Needs

I agree with what you say actually bmsjbatt. The vast majority of what I was saying in my posts was just joshing with Rashmi! I do agree wholeheartedly that the introduction of a formal Quality System into Blood Transfusion has improved things beyond the imagination of many of us who have worked in the field for (too?) many years, and those that have made this possible should be loudly applauded. I do, however, still have some reservations, such as when someone who knows precisely nothing about blood group serology, for example, comes into the Laboratory and states, with the power so to do, that we must change this or change that, without bothering to find out why the process is performed in the way it is done, and why it would be difficult/impossible to change without causing harm to the very patient we are trying to help. My other grouch is that some of the paperwork, particularly for Change Control, can be unnecessarily complicated. On the whole though, I do agree with what you have said. I do not think all quality people deranged (far from it); Rashmi, on the other hand.............................. :D:D:D:D

Hi Judy, I may well be being a bit obtuse here (it wouldn't be the first time) but isn't the whole idea of keeping the plasma on the sample so that there is no chance that the samples can be mixed up. Therefore, from a quality point of view, would it not be better to pipette out a sample of the red cells from the bottom of the tube, through the plasma, rather than to take the plasma off, then take out some of the red cells and then replace the plasma? I see totally that, if you are handling one sample at a time, there is very little chance of a mix-up (and, indeed, because of the nature of the work in my own Laboratory, all samples are separated - strictly one at a time), but I just wonder if pipetting off a sample of packed red cells through the plasma would be "safer" from the quality point of view???? I don't know; I am just asking for your own opinion. :confused::confused:

I voted for automatic cross-matching, but, actually, if it were part of a work-up for surgery in say three or four weeks time, we would not cross-match on that sample. We would request one nearer the day. This was when I was working in a hospital, of course.

Quite, and this really was GOOD champagne! :ohmygod:

I quite agree and in no way am I "picking" on Ortho, or exonerating other companies in the same position.

I do know of at least one tragic case involving liquid nitrogen though Mabel. It was while I was working at Westminster Medical School. A very senior doctor was given an extremely expensive bottle of champagne by a grateful patient. The docotr decided that the champagne should be consummed immediately (before it went off I presume), but it was at room temperature. INstead of putting it in a fridge, or even into a freezer for a short time, the recipient plunged the bottle into some liquid nitrogen and the inevitable happened; the bottle shattered. Nobody was hurt, but the loss of the champagne was, without doubt, a tragedy, and I have never forgotten to this day (although I do still speak to the doctor involved)! :cries::cries:

This thread is extremely similar to one begun by LaraT23 "Problems with cell#2 ortho screen cells". In no way am I moaning about the similaritiy of the thread, but in both threads people have stated that Ortho say that "nobody else has had this problem". It is this (Ortho's responce) that I find very worrying. Am I the only one who thinks that Ortho should look a bit closer into just what is happening (and, just maybe, be a bit more honest in saying that there is a more widespread problem)? :confused::confused:

When I was working with Carolyn Giles and Joyce Poole at the International Blood Group Reference Laboratory (IBGRL) in the early to mid-1970's when it was in London (and when Joyce was a mere Senior Medical Laboratory Technician) they called these near impossibly weak reactions (commonly known as "negative reactions") "Malcolm weaks". To my embarrassment, essentially negative, but scruffy reactions, are, apparently, still known as "Malcolm weaks" at the IBGRL. Sadly, It is my only claim to fame from when I was employed there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On the other hand, generations of people who have passed through the doors of the Laboratory must think, "Who the heck is this Malcolm bloke"! :disbelief:disbelief:disbelief

Could well be Anna.

I think I meant that I am enjoying the challenge of trying to establish quality aspects.

It seems a very strange juxtaposition having "quality" and "fun" in the same sentence. I do not wish to cast aspersions (you know me much better than that Rashmi) but you do know that you can now self-refer to Occupational Health? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

I can't honestly say that e have noticed this.

What ** Old Thing! Yes, except for those forms associated with Hematos (our work-related computer system). Did I say that most of the forms we use are NOT waffle??????????????? Take the one where we record which pipette we use, in case there is a problem identified in two centuries time. Why, when we would see problems with our controls immediately, do we have this form? Because it keeps some jobsworth in a paid position (and, of course, the MHRA say we have to record these things, despite cogent arguements that it is so much faff - is that the word??????). :sarcastic:sarcastic:sarcastic

Isn't it amazing that, now we live in the paperless society, forms to do with Heath and Safety and with Quality (both essential parts of our work in the right place) have expanded in number exponentially and, what is more, since society has become more litigious, and the blamefree culture has been introduced, the versions of each document seem to change on almost a weekly basis? Just an observation. What happened to the time when people took responsibility for their own and other's health and safety, it was accepted that accidents happen and that blame was proportionate? :angered:

Yes. We use QPulse5. When we started to use this, I had all sorts of problems. Then I realised that this was not the fault of the computer programme;rather the fault lay nearer to home (I'm almost completely computer illiterate!). The system is somewhat complicated when you first start, but actually, if you press the correct buttons on your keyboard, it works well. I found that the main complication though was the fact that the computer did what I told it to do, rather than what I actually wanted it to do. I find this an awful lot with computers; it's very annoying! :cool:

THe correct email address is robert.stamps@nbs.nhs.uk.

We use to do that too, but we would also add time expired anti-A or anti-B to the mixture. This made the bubbles a very pretty yellow or blue (trouble was, the colouring used to stain the floor, and so we got found out). :D

Are these "extended panels" extra, or more expensive than the "normal panels"? If so, and excuse my cynicism, I bet they say these could help! :rolleyes:

Hi DMR, In the National Health Service Blood and Transplant in England, most of the Donath Landsteiner testing is performed at the NHSBT-Sheffield Centre (although, we do perform the test in my own laboratory at NHSBT-Tooting Centre from time to time). Within this Centre works a very good friend and colleague of mine, Bob Stamps, who is rightly regarded as the DL expert in the UK, having been involved in writing several papers on the subject. It might be worth your while emailing Bob and asking him for some information. The trouble is, I'm not sure of his email address! It is either robert.stamps@nbs.nhs.uk or bob.stamps@nbs.nhs.uk. If you try both, at least one of them should get through! If you are worried about contacting him out of the blue, just mention my name. If this is not urgent, send an email to my work at malcolm.needs@nbs.nhs.uk, detailing exactly what you would like to know, and I will gladly forward it to Bob. I hope this helps. Best wishes, Malcolm

Good for you. More power to your elbow. I couldn't agree more with you that it is educational. It's one of those meetings where you work hard (and play hard), but you learn an awful lot in the bars and eating areas, as well as in the lectures.

Don't worry Brenda. In the old days, part of a Pathologists training was to do on-call in blood transfusion. One of these (my Best Man at my wedding actually) regularly used to answer the telephone as, "Hello, Blood Confusion".

Oh phew! I thought that you could take offence (although it was not meant in any way like that)! Thanks. Now, about my dainty fingertips. Imagine four salamis, touched off with a log, and you've got my fingers and thumbs..... :disbelief:disbelief:disbelief

Hi there, I am just being nosy (as usual, many of my "friends" would say) but are any of the BBT Members from outside of Britain going to be over for the BBTS ASM next week (ish) in Manchester? If so, I would be absolutely delighted if you would make yourself/yourselves known to me (even if it is only to tell me to stop posting rubbish)!!!!!!! :please:

I like your method David and, oh boy, do I agree with your last statement!

I came across a superb bit of mis-spelling today by a doctor. It is the first time I have ever seen the word "Sir Name"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :eyepoppin:eyepoppin:eyepoppin