Steven Wiltshire

Our major incident testing nearly led to a disaster! A&E were testing the major incident simulating a gas attack. They requested pods from the NBS (as was). Luckily the NBS sent some pods under close supervision as a "keenie" wanted to take the pods and open them by each "victim", thus potentially rendering them unfit for purpose. Said keenie was not impressed by the NBS being so picky about their precious commodity! We have Business Continuity plans, IT failure plans, emergency plans for red cell and platelet shortages but what we do not have is a plan which is resourced sufficiently to do the job. Built in redundancy is not a popular concept!

Dear all Finally read this!!! We did validate NHSBT cells but supply would be difficult, especially if other users had urgent demand. The supplier is looking to their contingency plans but have no concrete reply as yet Cheers Steve

Given the recent disruption in flight schedules there was a potential issue with supply of screening cells. Is there any way of building a capacity plan to cover this? I ordered some cells from a supplier (insufficient to cover a 4 week period), and have validated them for future potential use. However our options are limited. We can order cells from a secondary supplier and just throw them away unused! We can use cells from two suppliers but that means two types of testing and also doubling risk if one of the suppliers fails We can order as and when required but why should a secondary supplier hold huge stocks on the off chance that an order might come in. We can buy head sized buckets of sand! I would welcome comments Cheers Steve

In the larger Trusts the position is changing rapidly with the advent of Blood Sciences. The Transfusion Lead will be answerable to either a Laboratory Manager (often Haematology but could be Chem Path) or possibly a Pathology Services Manager (all disciplines), not forgetting the ominous lurking presence of the Clinical Scientists. However good news: the reporting to HTC and hence to Patient Safety Committee (often chaired by the CEO) is a good way of keeping issues live. The presence of excellent Transfusion Practitioners (thanks to NPSA & NHSLA level 3) keeps higher management aware of issues. The MHRA have given weight to many arguments and we have all benefitted from new equipment, and written the risk assessment, change control, validation masterplan, contingency plan, new SOP, periodic review etcetera etcetera (watch out...bulging shelf at breaking point...document overload) to go with it! Mixed news: Is it all getting divisive? As combined Blood Sciences fill with Band 4 staff but BT looks at recent publications in the IBMS gazette re training requirements I see a gulf developing between BMS staff which I do not approve of. Perhaps Transfusion BMS staff will become the new Clinical Scientists...........Perhaps the NHSBT will employ us all..................Happy New Year I recommend a good Chair for the HTC (Anaesthetist if possible), Good Transfusion Consultant Lead, Good overall Haematology Lead, Good Transfusion Practitioner and justified arguments: Play the risk transfer game i.e. put risk in writing and get manager above you to take it on

Having obtained my M Sc in Bristol in 2005 (M Sc Transplantation and Transfusion science) I can confirm the quality of the course. My question would be "Why does a keen BMS have to travel to Edinburgh or Bristol, both very lovely places to study mind, and not be able to get the equivalent in London"? We have some excellent transfusion minds in London, why not a dedicated M Sc?