tricore

I'd say the fact that you are getting so many calls means that either training/competencies aren't up to scratch, or the SOP is lacking. You say that the tech had signed to say they were competent in the task - who had verified this? It sounds like you need to look at your own management, rather than blaming the techs.
I've been in the situation you are in as a young supervisor with people who are older (and more experienced in terms of years) below me and it is a hard place to be. Ironing out the issues with poor performers is the hardest thing to do and the only way to do it is with good competency-based assessments. Another thing to consider is including a list of changes when putting a new SOP out - you will find that 'old-timers' think they know the SOP so won't bother to read it (I've been guilty of that myself). Another thing I did was introduced an hour a day for each section where one person (on rotation) could spend the quietest time of the day (usually 11-12 or 2-3) getting up to date with any outstanding training. It meant that everyone (in theory) got an hour a fortnight. 
Do keep in mind that how they perform, and your response to it, will reflect directly on you - it's a good idea to keep them on side and make sure competencies are absolutely spot on. Anything that isn't can be brought up at their appraisal as a goal for the next year (not a stick to beat them with). Help your staff, keep them happy, and they will start having the confidence to trouble shoot themselves without fear of reprisals or looking stupid.
You could really make something positive out of this situation and get brownie points for it in your own appraisal.

The other thing is (I presume), you have the qualifications that they have not and/or you went for the position they either couldn't (because they lack the qualifications) or didn't want the position, or they did go for the position, but you won fair and square in an interview - so age shouldn't come into it.

"older than me and end up bossing me around"
If they won't listen to you, they shouldn't call. This sounds like something you should discuss with your manager.
That said, I would rather have them call me at 2am instead of having to spend 3 hours the next day fixing the mess.
My favorite: "The patient has a previously identified anti K, do I need to set up K neg RBCs? OH, never mind."  The light bulb went on when he asked me the question!! I
didn't have to say a word.

"older than me and end up bossing me around"
If they won't listen to you, they shouldn't call. This sounds like something you should discuss with your manager.
That said, I would rather have them call me at 2am instead of having to spend 3 hours the next day fixing the mess.
My favorite: "The patient has a previously identified anti K, do I need to set up K neg RBCs? OH, never mind."  The light bulb went on when he asked me the question!! I
didn't have to say a word.

"older than me and end up bossing me around"
If they won't listen to you, they shouldn't call. This sounds like something you should discuss with your manager.
That said, I would rather have them call me at 2am instead of having to spend 3 hours the next day fixing the mess.
My favorite: "The patient has a previously identified anti K, do I need to set up K neg RBCs? OH, never mind."  The light bulb went on when he asked me the question!! I
didn't have to say a word.

"older than me and end up bossing me around"
If they won't listen to you, they shouldn't call. This sounds like something you should discuss with your manager.
That said, I would rather have them call me at 2am instead of having to spend 3 hours the next day fixing the mess.
My favorite: "The patient has a previously identified anti K, do I need to set up K neg RBCs? OH, never mind."  The light bulb went on when he asked me the question!! I
didn't have to say a word.

"older than me and end up bossing me around"
If they won't listen to you, they shouldn't call. This sounds like something you should discuss with your manager.
That said, I would rather have them call me at 2am instead of having to spend 3 hours the next day fixing the mess.
My favorite: "The patient has a previously identified anti K, do I need to set up K neg RBCs? OH, never mind."  The light bulb went on when he asked me the question!! I
didn't have to say a word.

Yes, of course, which is why you MUST use enzyme-treated group O red cells (screening cells - not just one example of group O red cells) as a negative control.  If you do, and the group O red cells give a reaction, you still don't know the ABO group, until you have sorted out the specificity, and then used reverse grouping cells - and group O - cells negative for the cognate antigen.  If you don't use a negative control - you should be sacked!!!!!!!!!!
 
Nothing personal!

Have seen this many times with cancer patients.   They are probably immunosuppressed and not making a lot of antibodies including isoagglutinins.   I would try room temp incubation first.   Make sure you run an autocontrol.

Excuse me for saying so, as I am in the UK and not the USA (so I may be "poking my nose in where it is not wanted"), but, surely, if the person being called specialises in a different department, and you are asking a "specialised question", then the person being asked the question should say that they do not know the answer, but will ask someone who does, and get back to you?  Surely, if the question is important, the answer should be accurate and the person answering the question should not just "wing it"?
Just sayin!

There is every chance that the UK may be to blame for this.
The MHRA, our equivalent of CAP (for want of a better way of putting it - maybe Mafia is the correct word, I don't know) have had high level meetings with people in the USA, and they have exchanged ideas as to how to make our job even more difficult and beaurocratic (sorry, "safer", and with a higher degree of "quality", I meant to write), and we have had this rule in the UK now for some years. I would not be surprised, therefore, if they have infected your Quality System.

We have two hospitals using the Erytra. send me a pm and I will give you contacts. We are also using the Wadiana and the DG Reader.

I see from where you are coming Scott, but what REALLY annoys me is people like this nurse who assume, with little or no evidence, that other people are not as well-trained in some areas (such as aseptic techniques), as they are themselves, and then make statements to this effect, as if it makes them feel superior.  In other words, people who think they know better than others how to do the other person's job, and assume that the other person has no idea how to do their own job, just because the nurse (in this case) did not see what had already gone on in the background.
As somebody said to me at a symposium this week, patients and doctors involved in a case with complex serology, only see a swan swimming serenely on top of the water when we produce compatible blood for transfusion, and don't see the feet working frantically under the water.  In the same way this nurse assumes she sees everything, but actually knows nothing.
I was only half joking about irradiating her!!!!!!!!

Syringe aliquots are divided units.

Wouldn't this be a divide of a unit? Product code with A0, B0, C0, D0...up to 26 instances?

You could always irradiate the blood bag (as well as the blood), while the stupid nurse is holding it!!!

Well I am not going to say I 'like' this - I don't 'like' at all that the haematologists haven't seen him.  Surely there are only 2 possibilities with that level of drop in Hgb - either he is bleeding or he has a true warm auto immune haemolytic anaemia (or both, of course)

This does have a lab slant. And don't tell me I obviously have too much time on my hands now that I'm retired!
 
 
 
 
Doc1.docx

I have done many AABB/CAP coordinated inspections sooooooo - I guess using both is actually ok in this instance.  It does keep you from getting inspected twice.

Borderline?????????????????????????
 
Give some of these inspectors a peaked cap and a neurone and they'd be dangerous.

LOL!  SOPs to define how you update SOPS!  Don't you just love regulations!
 
Scott

That should have been provided by the assessor.  They cite a standard, then list the objective evidence they found.
Are you using their form to submit your response?  The first time I responded (100 years ago) I didn't realize they expected me to use this form.  It's found here.  I also attached it.
corractplan.doc

When names change, for whatever reason, as long as the MR# and birthdate remain the same we will not abuse the patient with another venipuncture.   The name change is documented in the Medical Record.  We also use BloodLoc codes with a separate armband so our confidence level for patient specimen/transfusion is pretty high.

I think my comment may have been a bit more helpful if I had actually quoted a reference!
One such is, Cox C, Enno A, Deveridge S, Seldon M, Richards R, Martens V, Woodford P.  Remote electronic blood release system.  Transfusion 1997; 37: 960-964.
As you can see, this paper was published almost 20 years ago now, and one would suspect that improvements in computers and information technology, particularly with reference to safe release of blood, or rather preventing the unsafe release of blood, would also have improved over this time.

"inadequate process to make sure all standards are being addressed in my policies and wants to know why the process used to develop SOPs is failing to asure we meet all standards and no detect failure to confrom to standards."
Does your process for SOPs describe how you review SOPs when a new edition of standards is published to ensure you are meeting new/revised standards? Does your SOP for SOPs describe how you check Standards when you write a new SOP to ensure you are meeting current standards? Then, of course, you have to have documentation that the review is performed when a new edition is published.