BankerGirl

I requested a quote for this fabulous-sounding product just now. This would be great for us!

We do exactly as Terri Bostock except that we use the MR# which does not change with each admission. This also also allows us to use hematology tubes when needed.

It's Helmer for us.

ElizabethP, We recently switched to the Echo and I tried running the WB corQC in tube and the only positive (antibody screening) I was able to detect was in screening cell 2 with anti-D. This didn't react at all with cell 1 (also Rh positive) as well as negative reactions with the c antibody sample. I ended up ordering the other corQC kit just for positive antibody QC. I don't understand these results, but it is what it is.

Five Platelets sounds way high. We are similar in size and we ARE a Trauma center and we only stock 3 on weekdays and 2 on weekends. We are 1.5 hours away from our blood supplier. They rotate our platelets 6 days a week so we are always getting fresh platelets to help reduce waste. Of course this is contingent upon their supply, so if they don't get fresh ones in, then they have us keep the ones we have. Our newest neurosurgeon is very annoyed if he gets in a patient and we have given our platelets to other patients, even though that is a rarity, but he doesn't get a say in our stock levels.

The other thing you have to remember is that the charges are not for the blood itself, but for the processing needed to provide the blood. These charges are the same regardless of how much of the unit is actually administered.

We do the much the same as Mollyredone, making copies in case the original disappears. Occasionally the form makes its way back to HIM prior to physician's signature, in which case they will send it back to me (still unsigned!). I have usually already gotten the copy signed by the time this happens, though. Our lab secretary then scans the form into the EMR and I also keep the form in my files.

I agree with Malcolm. We have a pregnant lady who came to us from another town who has an immune anti-D that is reacting very weakly. The gel antibody screen showed 2+ reactivity and the saline titer was zero with a score of zero as well. The previous doctor had sent one previous titer that I am aware of and the results were the same. Hopefully she stays that low, but it will be interesting to follow her to see if it rises. Our last immune anti-D patient had a significant jump in her titer 1 month prior to delivery, but she started out much higher well.

We always do the type. If it's negative we expect a full type and screen but it doesn't always come because the ED doc will sometimes consult the OB doc and find out that the patient just had RhIG in the office. Or, in the case of an alarming number of recent patients (2 ) they already have immune anti-D.

We do exactly the same here and document the date of injection. When the current screen is positive, the LIS won't allow electronic crossmatch, but all that is required is an immediate spin, not AHG, since it is not clinically significant.

This was my thought as well.

We don't have a hospital policy stating this but all of our physicians currently on staff order a type and screen on every pregnant patient with impending delivery. They don't usually do it for patients under observation or admitted for other reasons. For RhIG, we only repeat the post-partum Rh.

We received the investigation report from Immucor, and they were able to duplicate our results. They tested the our panel lot with another anti-Cw and this showed reactivity. Basically, they said we see what you see, we don't know why, but our product is working. Too bad there wasn't enough sample to do more investigating.

Ours is the same as Terri's.

We just had this upgrade yesterday and I noticed that too. It definitely looks strange, but the HX comments box still appears first when you go into result entry. I'm hoping this will work out OK. Time will tell.

I was able to scrounge up about 2 ml of plasma from hematology and blood bank and have sent this to Immucor for their investigation. I don't know what they will find out, but suspect that with the age and limitted amount of specimen, they will not be able to do a full investigation. I will post their response once they get the results.

I haven't contacted them yet. I will update when I get their response. I was curious after reading a few other posts regarding Echo antibody ids whether this could be explained by the nature of the antibody. I will post their response when I get it.

We have a patient who had an anti-Cw identified 21/2 years ago during routine prenatal testing. She recently came in to deliver baby #2 and we are still detecting the anti-Cw 4+ in gel (manual method) and 2+ in tube. We are in the process of validating the Echo and ran her antibody ID on it and the panel was negative with all cells tested, even though there were 2 Cw positive cells on the Ready ID panel. The fact that we were able to detect the Cw in both tube and gel but not on the Echo makes me nervous. We did AHG crossmatches and had one donor who was 3+ positive in gel but was compatible on the Echo. Granted, since we don't have anti-Cw antisera we can only assume the incompatibility is due to the Cw, but this is also concerning me. Is it possible that the anti-Cw is IgM in nature? I couldn't find much in the Technical Manual on this antibody. We are also pretty much out of plasma and the patient has gone home. Any ideas? Thanks in advance.

I admit, I chuckled when I read this "new" notice.

We switched from CAP to API several years ago and I have to say, I am very disappointed in the Fetal Cell product. We have had two different surveys where we had to report that we were unable to assay the Quantitative (KB) portion on one sample. The sample looked degraded and by the time the tech got around to doing it and letting me know, it was too late to order a replacement specimen. I have asked the techs assigned to these samples to complete the testing ASAP and that hasn't seemed to make a difference. The samples arrive looking old--as in dark, almost chocolate brown. The last one was fine, but I am still sceptical.

The only other exception we make on issuing multiple units at one time is for dialysis. They can transfuse a unit in 15 minutes. Otherwise, we limit to the above mentioned units.

We evaluate every anti-M, each time, for 37 degree reactivity. Not taking any unnecessary risks. Although I still have a few techs who will screen units regardless of clinical significance on the basis of "I see it, so I can't ignore it."

I have actually done this with a MTP and was invited to do so by our Trauma Coordinator. She gets the implications and always has my back. The one I went to was a GI bleed in the ED, not in surgery, but it actually went very smoothly. Of course the folks who ran it were ones who had done it together a few times before and are always very good. Unfortunately they are both no longer employed here. I haven't had an opportunity to go on one since because I am usually the tech preparing the products. So, did I make a difference?? Probably not, because they were proficient to begin with. Oh well!

At our facility, nursing bills for this when they administer the transfusion.

I have basically the same statement in my blood return policy and during my last inspection, the inspector couldn't get past the "30 minutes" and told me it wasn't acceptable. Ours states if returned within 30 mins we will take temp and evaluate, but if outside of 30 minutes, automatic quarantine. I had to explain it to him three times. Then the lightbulb went on and he said OK.