MAGNUM

TS FOR PACKED CELLS, PLT COUNT FOR PLATELETS, PT/PTT FOR FFP, AND FIBRINOGEN FOR CRYO. THAT ALL TYPICALLY GOES OUT THE WINDOW WHEN IT COMES TO TRAUMAS AND MTP'S.

I use Meditech and do not have any paper. As to histories, we look up each patient history when we get specimens on the patient.  Normally on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, I download a copy of patient histories onto a DVD in case of Ransom Ware Attacks. The file is downloaded and saved as a Word file that is accessible from any PC.
 

I use Meditech and do not have any paper. As to histories, we look up each patient history when we get specimens on the patient.  Normally on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, I download a copy of patient histories onto a DVD in case of Ransom Ware Attacks. The file is downloaded and saved as a Word file that is accessible from any PC.
 

Let me play the devils advocate when it comes to using the historical type. What happens if the patient is not really the patient that the original ABO was performed on? What about the times when the ID number is bought and used by multiple people especially where there is a large community of people who are not necessarily legal to be here?
For these reasons and a few more, we require a current type.

I would not be performing one hour post-transfusion vital signs unless the patient has signs or symptoms that require assessment.  I would not be reacting to one hour post-transfusion data unless they were consonant with a transfusion reaction.  If fever was the only sign or symptom, it's probably not transfusion related in the vast majority of cases.  Routine vital signs in the absence of a clinical rationale are a problem, not a solution.

Well said.

CONGRATS MALCOLM!!

I have never added albumin to my Lui Freezes.

We retype the units as they come in because like CSP0102, I have personally found units mislabeled at the blood center, so better safe than sorry I like to say.

We retype the units as they come in because like CSP0102, I have personally found units mislabeled at the blood center, so better safe than sorry I like to say.

We retype the units as they come in because like CSP0102, I have personally found units mislabeled at the blood center, so better safe than sorry I like to say.

To keep or not to Keep, that is the question. My answer is to review the guidelines for your accrediting agency and follow their rules. I personally keep them for approximately 2 years because that is about how long it takes to fill a storage box. Once filled, I send to an offsite storage for another 2 years then they are destroyed.

Actually, the original intent was looking for the reader itself

No, I do not accept tubes that are less than half full, The reasoning behind this is should we need to perform ID's and crossmatches, we want to insure that there is enough specimen to go around.

This is an almost impossible question to answer, as it is ALWAYS the responsibility of the physician looking after the patient to perform a risk assessment as to which he or she thinks is the higher risk - viz is it a higher risk to go ahead with the transfusion, or is it a higher risk to leave the patient without a transfusion?  He or she will take advice from such professionals as the Pathologist, but, in the end, only they can take the decision.
That having been said, it also depends whether any or all of those antibodies listed are detectable in the present sample, or whether some are historic, and, therefore, if some of these can be "ignored" from the point-of-view of transfusion, such as the anti-N.  In extremis, the clinical significance of the antibodies can be assessed by use of bioassays, such as MMA, ADCC and CLT, and even looking at the IgG subtypes of the antibodies.
If it is decided that it is safer to go ahead with the transfusion, than to withhold the transfusion, it could be made safer by  the use of IVIgG (see, for example, Win N, Needs M, Thornton N, Webster R, Chang C.  Transfusion of least-incompatible blood with intravenous immunoglobulin plus steroids cover in two patients with rare antibody.  Transfusion 2018; 58: 1626-1630 [doi: 10.1111/trf.14648], and Win N, Almusawy M, Fitzgerald L, Hannah G, Bullock T.  Prevention of hemolytic transfusion reactions with intravenous immunoglobulin prophylaxis in U- patients with anti-U.  Transfusion 2019; 59: 1916-1920 [doi:10.1111/trf.15230]).
Finally, I MUST remind readers that I am a (retired) Biomedical Scientist, and NOT a clinician.

I think you will find that dichloro-diphenyl-trichloroethane will destroy a lot more than just the Kell Blood Group System antigens!!!!!!!!!!!  

We instituted the practice of retyping the patients if their histories could not be proven. To do so, we instituted the practice of performing the retypes on a different specimen collected at a different time within the previous 24 hrs or within 1 hr of the blood type verification in the LIS. The histories are checked on every patient in the blood bank, if they do not have a historical type, the phlebotomist is sent to the patient room to collect a new lavender top tube. It does not matter the type of the patient, if they have no history, they get retyped. This practice ties into CAP TRM.30575. We have actually "caught" incorrect collections by the RN's that collected the incorrect patient and labeled the specimen with the wrong patient information.
This is our practice and we are sticking to it!
 
The other Scott

We instituted the practice of retyping the patients if their histories could not be proven. To do so, we instituted the practice of performing the retypes on a different specimen collected at a different time within the previous 24 hrs or within 1 hr of the blood type verification in the LIS. The histories are checked on every patient in the blood bank, if they do not have a historical type, the phlebotomist is sent to the patient room to collect a new lavender top tube. It does not matter the type of the patient, if they have no history, they get retyped. This practice ties into CAP TRM.30575. We have actually "caught" incorrect collections by the RN's that collected the incorrect patient and labeled the specimen with the wrong patient information.
This is our practice and we are sticking to it!
 
The other Scott

When I started here a few years back, we were repeating the ABSC along with performing the Fetal Screen. I have since with the blessing of our Medical Director done away with the second ABSC.

We instituted the practice of retyping the patients if their histories could not be proven. To do so, we instituted the practice of performing the retypes on a different specimen collected at a different time within the previous 24 hrs or within 1 hr of the blood type verification in the LIS. The histories are checked on every patient in the blood bank, if they do not have a historical type, the phlebotomist is sent to the patient room to collect a new lavender top tube. It does not matter the type of the patient, if they have no history, they get retyped. This practice ties into CAP TRM.30575. We have actually "caught" incorrect collections by the RN's that collected the incorrect patient and labeled the specimen with the wrong patient information.
This is our practice and we are sticking to it!
 
The other Scott

We instituted the practice of retyping the patients if their histories could not be proven. To do so, we instituted the practice of performing the retypes on a different specimen collected at a different time within the previous 24 hrs or within 1 hr of the blood type verification in the LIS. The histories are checked on every patient in the blood bank, if they do not have a historical type, the phlebotomist is sent to the patient room to collect a new lavender top tube. It does not matter the type of the patient, if they have no history, they get retyped. This practice ties into CAP TRM.30575. We have actually "caught" incorrect collections by the RN's that collected the incorrect patient and labeled the specimen with the wrong patient information.
This is our practice and we are sticking to it!
 
The other Scott

I am sorry, but this rather proves to me that the FDA should take more advice, if they are going to claim to be the "be all and end all" in terms of ultimate authority.

I, and many people much more expert in the field than me (to name one, Dr Geoff Daniels), would agree with Dr Gandhi that serological ABO typing is far superior to molecular typing, BUT, the same cannot be said for RHD typing, where molecular typing is vastly superior to serological typing (not least because no blend of monoclonal anti-D reagent can detect all weak and partial D types, and no monoclonal anti-D has yet to be found that will not react with a Partial DIII).
It is also disappointing that Dr Gandhi is unable to use the internationally accepted terminology for the D antigen.  Many, many moons ago, Dr Patricia Tippett, who, you will recall, did the original work on partial D categorisation, which, to a large extent, is still used,not least by the International Society of Blood Transfusion.  Patricia pointed out that the correct terminology for the first of the Rh antigens was "D", and certainly not Rh(D).  Obviously, Dr Gandhi is one of those who feel they are above and beyond the reaches of those who really know.
Turning to Dr Park, I would again say that ABO typing is, almost universally, better done serologically (I doubt anyone would argue with that), but that the molecular testing of the RHD gene and, by inference, the fact that they are far more accurate than is D typing by serological techniques.  If this were not so, people with partial D types would not still be making allo-anti-D in the numbers that they are.
Similarly to the misuse of terminology by Dr Gandhi, I also note that Dr Park writes, "We use molecular-based testing for a lot of blood bank phenotyping now."  Since when has a "molecular technique" in the world of blood transfusion been "phenotyping", rather than "genotyping".  This is not just a mistake in terms of "blood grouping terminology", this is a very basic mistake in terms of biological science.
This brings me back to my question, do these "experts" make up their rules as they go along, or do they actually take any advice from the experts in the field, who wrote those two papers I cited in my earlier post?  I must say that they don't seem to be that "expert" to me.

The patient gets billed, even though we can make the case for unnecessary testing.

I want to preface the following remarks by saying that I am, or at least spent over 35 years, a blood banker in various capacities.  I am one of you. 
Blood bankers, with good reason, can generally be described as untrusting to the point of paranoia.  No one can do the job as well as we can and that includes other blood bankers.  I have never known one of us who would willingly trust a sample drawn at another facility.  It's hard enough to trust our own phlebotomy staff!  I don't even want to get into nurse draws!  We are this way because we understand the potential dangers and in all honesty most of this comes from a true concern for patients we never personally see.  I had one staff member quit a blood bank day shift to work as a generalist on the night shift because she was convinced that the use of the new automated analyzer would result in the death of all of her patients because she would not personally be doing the testing.  Granted that's a little extreme but it is an example.  
So to answer the original question of this thread, I am fairly confident you will find little or no support for "using a blood bank sample drawn and tested from another facility".

We are a community hospital and  frequently transfer patients to a larger facility.  We also have had issues with dialysis patient's needing a blood transfusion during dialysis where there sample has been collected at another facility.  We do not crossmatch or transfuse blood from a sample that has not been collected within our hospital system governed by our patient identification and labeling policies.   The  larger hospital where our patients are transferred does not crossmatch or transfuse based on any tube we have collected at our facility.  There is far too much risk in patient safety in my opinion when you loose control over collection and identification of the patient.