Dansket

Consider using flow charts to reduce the volume of text in the SOP.

I think you-all missed the point of gagpinks' posting.  It was an hypothetical question, "Would you provide little-c negative rbcs or rbcs untested for little-c to this infant if transfusion was required on day 7?"

If it doesn't have FDA 510K for computer crossmatch, forget it!

If the current antibody screen is negative, patients with a history of anti-D due to Rh Immune Globulin injection qualify for electronic crossmatch in our computer system.  We use the term "RhIG" to designate passively-acquired anti-D that is configured as "not clinically significant".

I dealt with this issue by doing DAT's on adults (upon physician request) with reporting separate results for anti-IgG and anti-C3d antisera so I didn't have to purchase the polyspecific reagent.

If the current antibody screen is negative, patients with a history of anti-D due to Rh Immune Globulin injection qualify for electronic crossmatch in our computer system.  We use the term "RhIG" to designate passively-acquired anti-D that is configured as "not clinically significant".

Has anyone used this solution, that is used for clearing lipemic blood samples in Chemistry, in Blood Bank?
LipoBrochure.pdf

Just an aside:  I remember when the big "switch" to EDTA specimens was happening.  The poly users were busting my chops 'cuz I used anti-IgG . . . they said I couldn't detect complement activation.  To the EDTA users I said "neither can you".  I haven't used polyAHG in over 20 yrs.  Most of the hospitals around me (gel and tube users) only carry IgG cards or anti-IgG, they send me their DATs for complement testing so I would guess that in Northern NH/Vt there are no polyAHG users (that I am aware of).

Do you do tube or gel testing?  If tube, refer to manufacturer's direction insert.  Doing Weak D testing only on newborns is a policy decision that is consistent with what we do using Gel and back in the old days when I did tube test with an anti-D monoclonal blend reagent.

Your procedures are outdated and I agree with your pathologist.  Once an RBC unit exceeds 10C, it should be discarded per AABB, CAP, FDA.  We discard any returned units that have been spiked or if the outlet port covers have been opened, to that they may not be reissued...   
 
There have been extensive discussions on this website regarding this very issue.

Diatribe on Shall vs Must
 
1. "Shall" has three strikes against it.
First, lawyers regularly misuse it to mean something other than "has a duty to." It has become so corrupted by misuse that it has no firm meaning.
Second—and related to the first—it breeds litigation. There are 76 pages in "Words and Phrases" (a legal reference) that summarize hundreds of cases interpreting "shall."
Third, nobody uses "shall" in common speech. It's one more example of unnecessary lawyer talk. Nobody says, "You shall finish the project in a week."
For all these reasons, "must" is a better choice, and the change has already started to take place. The new Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, for instance, use "must," not "shall."
Prof. Joe Kimble, Thomas Cooley Law School

And I must disagree with your misinterpretation of that standard, and I quote (and it is also quoted in the above statement you designated): 
 
. . . if the laboratory performing the testing does NOT (my caps) maintain records that would allow this check to be performed, the testing shall be reported with a disclaimer . . .
 
It does not say a disclaimer must be used if this is the first time you've seen a patient BUT only if you do not keep any records which you can compare current results to.  I doesn't say anything about not having a previous history, that is your interpretation/paraphrase. 
 
What blood bank/transfusion service (in the USA anyway) doesn't keep records?  Anyway, like I stated, if you want to put a disclaimer in - go ahead.  But don't misinterpret the standards.
 
I also think MUST is a mandatory requirement; SHALL can be argued as you probably should do it but . . . the semantics of legaleze.
 
I just had CAP with this current standard:  No deficiencies!

Would you issue Type-Specific blood to a patient based solely on patient history without any testing on a current blood sample?  We require an Rh type done on a current blood sample prior to issue of Rh Immune Globulin.

If the current antibody screen is negative, patients with a history of anti-D due to Rh Immune Globulin injection qualify for electronic crossmatch in our computer system.  We use the term "RhIG" to designate passively-acquired anti-D that is configured as "not clinically significant".

Would you issue Type-Specific blood to a patient based solely on patient history without any testing on a current blood sample?  We require an Rh type done on a current blood sample prior to issue of Rh Immune Globulin.

Consider using flow charts to reduce the volume of text in the SOP.

Earlier this week at the 2015 AABB Annual Meeting "Ask the Standards" session, the AABB confirmed testing performed by the donor center as specified in this standard, DOES meet the intent since the Standard does not specify WHO does the testing, only that it be performed before transfusion. 

Would you issue Type-Specific blood to a patient based solely on patient history without any testing on a current blood sample?  We require an Rh type done on a current blood sample prior to issue of Rh Immune Globulin.

I don't know,  not being required to do ABO/Rh confirmation on donor tubing segments would significantly and positively impact workflow in most if not all transfusion services in the US.

I posted this question in UK Guidelines forum and Malcolm responded that isn't a requirement in UK.  UK donor centers guarantee that what is in the bag matches the label.
 
It is not an FDA requirement for transfusion services to serologically confirm the ABO/Rh type of red cell components using rbcs from a donor tubing segment, it's the CAP, AABB, etc.  
 
I'm trying to drum-up interest in the transfusion services community to push their donor centers to implement the same practice in the US that UK donor centers do!
 
Please don't tell me they can't do it!  This is 2015, not 1980...

I posted this question in UK Guidelines forum and Malcolm responded that isn't a requirement in UK.  UK donor centers guarantee that what is in the bag matches the label.
 
It is not an FDA requirement for transfusion services to serologically confirm the ABO/Rh type of red cell components using rbcs from a donor tubing segment, it's the CAP, AABB, etc.  
 
I'm trying to drum-up interest in the transfusion services community to push their donor centers to implement the same practice in the US that UK donor centers do!
 
Please don't tell me they can't do it!  This is 2015, not 1980...

We've stuck with 3 days.  We are a small rural hospital and people are not driving a hundred miles to have surgery here!

Antibody Screen and Antibody Identification are linked but separate processes with different purposes.
 
A negative antibody screen with a minimum of 2 cells has been established by blood bank regulators as a decision point regarding the requirement to perform an antiglobulin crossmatch prior to transfusion. An antibody screen is intended to detect unexpected antibody, not to identify it.  Identification requires different criteria.
 
Therefore, an antibody screen is an acceptable method to 'rule-out' the presence of unexpected antibody in patient blood sample. 

Antibody Screen and Antibody Identification are linked but separate processes with different purposes.
 
A negative antibody screen with a minimum of 2 cells has been established by blood bank regulators as a decision point regarding the requirement to perform an antiglobulin crossmatch prior to transfusion. An antibody screen is intended to detect unexpected antibody, not to identify it.  Identification requires different criteria.
 
Therefore, an antibody screen is an acceptable method to 'rule-out' the presence of unexpected antibody in patient blood sample. 

Antibody Screen and Antibody Identification are linked but separate processes with different purposes.
 
A negative antibody screen with a minimum of 2 cells has been established by blood bank regulators as a decision point regarding the requirement to perform an antiglobulin crossmatch prior to transfusion. An antibody screen is intended to detect unexpected antibody, not to identify it.  Identification requires different criteria.
 
Therefore, an antibody screen is an acceptable method to 'rule-out' the presence of unexpected antibody in patient blood sample.