Grippy
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Events
Frequently Asked Questions
Gallery
Downloads
Glossary
Links Directory
Questions
Jobs
Vendors
Posts posted by Grippy
-
-
50. If our lab was to use 100 we would all be spending twice the time doing diffs and much would be missed. Ever take a slide to the pathologist? They use a lower power than 50 to get the best overall view. Only go to 100 if there is something that needs inspection. If someone needs 100 to do a diff send them back to the student desk
-
"We have had issues with our sed rate analyzer for a few weeks" Issues? If the issues are so bad that you need a new one why use the old one for comparison?
Grippy,
The only "issues" that were occurring with our analyzer were happening with the barcode reader and the ability to manually type in patient IDs. The analyzer itself has been, and still is, functioning just fine (ie, QC has been within limits, etc..).
Obviously if the problem with the original instrument was analytical, I would not be using it for anything at this point - including comparison studies
Now I know.
-
Hello all!
My name is Kristen and I'm the supervisor of the hematology/coagulation department at our laboratory. I have about 9 years experience as a generalist on several shifts, but I am brand-spankin' new to this role.
We have had issues with our sed rate analyzer for a few weeks. The company is sending us a new one tomorrow (same model, etc...).
I realize things like accuracy, precision, and analytical range must be established. However, is it any different for this analyzer since it is the same method, model, etc..? And, how would your facility go about establishing these things in a situation like this?
I was planning on running QC on both the old and new analyzer for at least one week - this should prove accuracy sufficiently. I was also going to run a batch of patient samples as a comparison on the old vs the new analyzer...
How do you prove analytical range? Would you try to establish reproducibility as well?
I'd appreciate any help on this. My resources are, unfortunately, vague.
"We have had issues with our sed rate analyzer for a few weeks" Issues? If the issues are so bad that you need a new one why use the old one for comparison?
-
Wash 6 x no cell washer. Works for me
-
>to verify that he/she is in fact Kell negative. (This step only if they haven't been transfused in the last 90 days and may >have donor blood in their system)
Thanks for this info. I had been asking some coworkers about this and have an answer now.
-
Sure, I will print them up and take them to work with me.
-
Hi Grippy,
Let me know what your collegues think.
I would seriously like to actually print the "Golden Rules" as a poster and make it available to BBTalk people. The rules should be as good as they can be and get the right message out.
Been to Sri Lanka and am now back. It was my 4th trip there. Great place with excellent, kind and attentive people who are very keen to improve. Now If I can just get some time to get out of the capital and see some of the country!
I had opportunity today to ask 3 techs. The BB sup understood your point but said no it wasn't appropriate.
I asked one tech and they said without hesitation they would post it and another said no way. There was one more tech on but I didn't have a chance to ask. I will keep polling and posting.
I think it important to state how I asked as I didn't want to prejudice my audience. It was a straight forward
Would you post in BB that... The most dangerous thing in any lab are the humans.
I also told them to pretend it wasn't me asking.
-
Grippy. Thanks for stimulating this post.
Saying someone is fallible is almost like saying "it is OK to make a mistake, we all make mistakes and it is OK, we are only human after all". In my opinion, this is not the correct message to send. We want people to fully understand the implications of a simple error and be so concerned that they are very very very careful.
So, I maintain that "you are the most dangerous thing in the lab and do everything you can not to make mistakes" is still the right message. Is is not warm and fuzzy and not comforting but I have friends who have made lab errors that have resulted in fatalities (I am unaware of any I have made but I recognise the possibility) and they agree with the message.
Almost. Saying someone is dangerous is almost like saying they are going to do harm. Fallible means
they might make a mistake. Impress the possibility but don't scare them.
I am against warm and fuzzy and don't like the implication. If I was warm and fuzzy I would have not posted a contradictory opinion.....just nodded my head.
"As you can see, some experienced people in labs do not like to diminish....."
I am sure the inexperienced do not diminish the seriousness of BB either.
But you know what? At the lab tomorrow I will ask around and see what the techs say. I'd like to know and need more data. You could be right. I could be wrong.
Have fun in the Sri Lanka. It must be quite a place!!
-
I'd would have written most fallible <we're all fallible>.
Thanks for the discussion.
-
"The most dangerous thing in any lab are the humans."
I can't agree with this. I don't like how it's written or the implication. The most valuable thing in a lab is the human. That's what I think. The equipment is worthless without us. I know what you are trying to say but it needs to be said differently. If we think of ourselves as the most dangerous that's not productive or positive and a positive attitude is essential.
Otherwise I like your post
-
I have been a tech since 84 and find it a great job. I could have been a ditch digger or truck driver but I conspired against myself and became a Med Tech.
I work part time on the PM shift and would not have it any other way. I never liked having to do anything so this way I don't have to go to bed or wake up to an alarm.
I did my internship at Billy Beaumont in Royal Oak, MI. It was one of the worst years of my life. I came from a research job and was not at all prepared for the regimen plus I was a really immature, self centered creep. I made it real tough on myself but made it though cause I ain't stupid.
I got my first job at a small community hospital in the UP where we did little in the way of BB. Type and screens, cross matches but no antibody ID.
After a time I moved to a larger hospital in Wisconsin where we do considerable BB. It took some effort to get up to speed and I am still not the BB I would like to be. I work at it though and this forum looks to have many knowledgeable folk and I hope take advantage of the educational opportunity.
Don't be afraid to tell me I am an idiot if I ask a stupid question. I don't mind.
Grippy MA MT (ASCP)
-
Thank You for the reply.
I had asked to have MTS pipettes specifically for BB but no luck there. I will continue trying though.
Our lab bought a new BIOHIT.
We have been told that the pipettes are specific to their charger, Has anyone else been told this?
-
Hi,
First post so I don't want to be controversial. Our lab uses the gel system and I like it. What I don't like is the equipment. The pipettes are troublesome (erratic display, vibration) and the centrifuges are bad. One of ours won't close easily.
There must be a question here. Do you find that the equipment isn't as well made as it should be. That seems to be the consensus in our lab.
Cooler Question
in Equipment
Posted
This is a question. Red Cross delivers blood in styrofoam containers of 2 sizes. Big and medium. Why not use those? They work or Red Cross would not use them for long haul blood transfer?