Dansket

NO!! Mutiny would ensue should we require they be worn at all times.  Lab coats, gloves, yes, but not shields.

Yes.  Our 5-Day plasma expires at 2359 on fifth day after thawing regardless of the time thawed.

This is what we did.  I built a separate antibody called RHIG and made it not clinically significant.  It translates to PRESUMED RH IMMUNE GLOBULIN and we report the date given.

I stopped "washing cord blood samples 3 times" over 20 years ago.  Routine washing of cord blood red cells is a "solution" looking for a problem.  If you have documented evidence in your facility that unwashed cord red cells produce a high incidence of false-positive test results, then wash, wash, wash.  Otherwise, I would wash cord red cells only when a discrepancy is detected (positive Rh control test).

I only wash if I get a discrepancy I cannot resolve easily

Try a flow chart, or even a set of flow charts.

Try a flow chart, or even a set of flow charts.

We will rule out C and E in the presence of anti-D with a single C+c+ or E+e+ cell.  K may be also ruled out with a single K+k+ cell.

We will rule out C and E in the presence of anti-D with a single C+c+ or E+e+ cell.  K may be also ruled out with a single K+k+ cell.

There's no requirement to measure the temperature when you receive blood products from the supplier, only to confirm that the products were shipped appropriately.

As you know a "call box" can be created in the LIS Canned Text dictionary and its mnemonic can be entered as a "Result Comment" for T type tests in the BBK Test dictionary.  Unfortunately, the BBK test "ABS" is unique (not a T test)  and cannot be configured with a  Result comment.  I believe one option is to contact the Iactic company (iatric.com) and request a quote from their Report Writing service.  Expect the cost to be => $1000.  They can do some amazing things in Meditech.  Or you can do what goodchild and I have done by reflexing an Order group.

Tube test is the best way to resolve ABO plasma grouping discrepancies when expected anti-A and/or anti-B not detected in Gel.

Hi
Well let me deal with the 'ergo' part first.  Depending ion the circumstances, enzyme-IATs are ALSO done on gel.  If you have the slightest doubt about Kidd antibodies, this is one of the best methods for finding them.  It is just not very common (but not unknown) for this to be used as a routine method for ALL antibody screens
So why is gel more sensitive than tube.  First of all this ONLY applies to atypical antibodies.  the reason lies in the method.  Firstly, the tube technique tends to be (in most people's hands) very imprecise, with most people using drops (1 or 2 or 4.....) of plasma and drops (1 or 2...) of cells (3 or 4 or 5%.....) with or without LISS; if with LISS then either with LISS addition or by suspension of the cells in LISS; incubating for x minutes where x can be from 5 to 60 mins.  Then the tubes are washed 3 or 4 times with a spin cycle that is xxx(?) rpm for yy minutes - you can fill in your own values, removing some/most/all of the liquid between washes.-  Then to your possibly quite diluted remaining red cells, from which you may have washed off weakly attached antibodies anyway,  you add 1 or 2 drops of AHG and spin with a spin cycle that is xxx(?) rpm for yy minutes then read by eye/with a magnifying glass/with a microscope after re-suspending the cell button from so gently that you can't see anything to so hard that all your weak agglutinates have been shaken away................I will admit the variation in any one site is much less than this, but globally there is just no standardisation.  Gel is standardised, can be done on an instrument, and there is no washing.
But there are still good reasons for gel users to revert to tube techniques from time to time. 
Does that answer your question?
(And yes, I've done literally millions of tube IATs in my time; and no, I would not go back to using them as a routine method EVER!)

The nice part about changing from Echo is that the Vision uses the same technology on the manual bench as on the analyzer.
The Griffols Erytrya and Griffols bench procedures use the same technology too.  I am a proponent of the bench and analyzer to use the same technology.
I am a fan of automation in the BB, regardless of the vendor or the size of your BB.  Fewer chances for errors and it frees up your techs to do "other things".  
The nice part about staying with an Echo is that you are "staying the same".  I am sure $$ will factor into this decision at some point.
I currently do lab IT and we have interfaced Biorad Tangos, soon to interface an Infinity.  Our organization was required to purchase a third party piece of software to get this analyzer to interface to Mediware HCLL.  This added an extra layer of "work" and most likely cost.  
Good luck, this is a big decision, hope all goes well for you.
 
 

Column agglutination technology (Gel) does a superior job of detecting mixed populations of red cells in a blood sample compared to standard tube technology.  Having done ABO/Rh typing on ProVue since 2004, I've seen dozens of samples with dual population due to transfusion of a single unit of RBC that was not ABO/Rh identical to the recipient.  I think these mixed-field reactions (typically be missed in tube) are clearly visible in Gel.
 
Using an unspun sample of blood to do a forward ABO grouping isn't wrong, but is it really necessary to do this routinely on all blood samples?  Does the SOP give any explanation for this approach?

FDA references the term "computer crossmatch" in the USA.

Interesting, those of us doing electronic crossmatch would never see this.

Interesting, those of us doing electronic crossmatch would never see this.

Interesting, those of us doing electronic crossmatch would never see this.

Interesting, those of us doing electronic crossmatch would never see this.

Contact your ORTHO salesperson

I don't understood the rationale for using a less sensitive methodology (Tube Test DAT) to invalidate the results of a more sensitive methodology (Gel-DAT).  An auto-control (rbcs+plasma+37C incubation=Indirect Antiglobulin Test) and a DAT (rbcs only - no incubation=Direct Antiglobulin Test) are different tests and I don't expect them to agree 100% of the time (having done gel testing continuously for past 11 years).  Auto-control is not a reportable result.  If the Gel-DAT (anti-IgG card) is positive, I report DAT-Positive regardless of the auto-control results. Just my 2 cents!

It's going to detect ABO incompatibility if the right patient was drawn. Our practices are meant to prevent transfusion of ABO incompatible blood due to wrong blood in tube (WBIT) incidences.
 
Edit: If you are concerned only with patients who qualify for electronic crossmatch then that is slightly different issue, to be sure. I do not think everyone in this thread is using this information for EXM purposes only, though.
 

Send me private email.  I would be eager to assist you.

HFAP headquarters determined that we do meet the intent of the standard.  So no deficiency cited or on record.  Thanks for you replies!!