Jump to content

tupton

Members - Bounced Email
  • Posts

    38
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1
  • Country

    United States

Posts posted by tupton

  1. Thread back from the dead..........

     

    I just recently had an issue from the coders at my facility concerning 86885.  They say I can only bill 3 of code 86885 per day.  The problem is with reference lab testing.  On AB ID's we get billed for 20+.

     

    If anyone has more input, I would welcome it.

     

    Thanks

  2. I think I see what Dansket is referring to.

     

    Because of this one time scenario is this patient going to receive Kell-neg units for all future transfusions?

    What would individuals do at their own institutions presented this same scenario? One time only for Kell-neg or is it part of their history now?

     

    In this situation this would be a one-time scenario for K-neg units.  However, as Galvania posted, because this patient has already formed 2 antibodies, her chances of forming another are greater.  Thus, giving phenotypically similar units would be advantageous, if at all possible.

  3. We have seen similar problems at our facility Brenda.  Our last CAP survey did just as you described.  after reading the Survey Discussion, this problem was widespread and caused CAP not to score that sample.  Investigation revealed manufacturing issues that are to be corrected before the next survey.

  4. Hello all,

     

    I have encountered some controversy regarding a few of our patients that have historical antibodies.  As a general policy, at our facility a patient that exhibits a positice Ab screen must have an Ab ID.  Normally, we do our own identifications which includes antibody rule--outs using at least 2 cells, preferably 1 that is homozygous (when applicable).

     

    However, we have had a couple patients recently that didn't quite fit the criteria.

     

    Example:  Patient has a historical Anti-D and Anti-C.  Using our panel cells, Anti-D and Anti-C were confirmed (again), with 2 stray reactions in gel.  Autocontrol was positive.  DAT was negative.  Reviewing these 2 stray reactions, based on my experience, they looked kinda "funny."  I suspected some proteins in this patient's system were causing the stray reactions (patient was on chemotherapy).  All clinically significant antibodies were ruled out using at least 2 panel cells, EXCEPT for Kell.  I could only find 1 rule-out cell.

     

    So, instead of sending this patient to the Refence Lab to investigate the stray reactions, I (as supervisor of the department), screened units that were negative for C and Kell (as a precaution).  Both units were XM compatible through AHG and transfused without incident.

     

    Later, another tech (who happened to be the supervisor before me) questioned this strategy.  She claims this patient should have been sent to the IRL from the begining.  I disagree.  In my opinion, she is being to strict.  Even if we would have positively identified an anti-Kell, we still would have given Kell-neg units!  Clinically, either way results in the same outcome, the difference being using my approach saved at least a $500 Reference Lab bill and the patient got their blood at least 24 hours sooner.

     

    My Lab Director responded to the other tech's request and a sample was sent to the IRL anyway.  The results from the IRL confirmed Anti-D and Anti-C.

     

    So, did I do the right thing? Is this a decision that should be based on judgement or policy?

     

    Thanks for the replies!

     

    Tom

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.