Posted April 7, 20223 yr comment_83201 A question for those of you who have interfaced instruments: are you using autoverification.
April 14, 20223 yr comment_83250 We use an IH-500. If the reactions in the software have no discrepancies (from previous or within the current results, weak reactions, error codes, etc.) they will autovalidate to our LIS. Our LIS does not autoverify. Those are always looked at before being released. sandra
April 19, 20223 yr comment_83276 On 4/14/2022 at 7:14 AM, AuntiS said: We use an IH-500. If the reactions in the software have no discrepancies (from previous or within the current results, weak reactions, error codes, etc.) they will autovalidate to our LIS. Our LIS does not autoverify. Those are always looked at before being released. sandra We use the Immucor Echo and have it set up the same way. No reason to look at it twice, but I definitely would not set it to autoverify.
April 21, 20223 yr comment_83298 No here as well. Curious though, is there a standard or regulation that forbids autoverification in Blood Bank? I have always heard that it is not allowed in blood bank but why? Can someone point me to the standard? This question has come up where I work several times and I have always just said it is not allowed but can't say why.
April 21, 20223 yr comment_83305 7 hours ago, jayinsat said: No here as well. Curious though, is there a standard or regulation that forbids autoverification in Blood Bank? I have always heard that it is not allowed in blood bank but why? Can someone point me to the standard? This question has come up where I work several times and I have always just said it is not allowed but can't say why. My impression (and experience) is that when instruments are initially set-up the system is not really trusted and everyone is more comfortable with manual verification. Over time change becomes harder, drops in priority and so manual verification becomes dogma.
January 1, 20241 yr comment_87483 We will be going live with Safetrace in September, which can be set up to Autoverify. As I understand it only interpretations that match the Vision logic will be sent, and then the Safetrace truth tables come in to play. We would only be sending over negative screens, negative DATs and ABORhs that had a valid interpretation on the Vision. We don't have our interface yet but plan on doing extensive testing before pulling the trigger on autoverify. Hoping to implement it! applejw - any issues encountered with Autoverify? On 4/26/2022 at 8:56 AM, applejw said: We have Ortho Visions and do autoverify.
January 2, 20241 yr comment_87499 No issues that can't be attributed to temporary cognitive disunion. The instruments do what they are supposed to do and it makes it much smoother for the interfaced result review in Soft. We don't have it set up as Chemistry and Hematology do - we do have to review and complete the result even if normal and/or negative. But one less step for us helps a lot.
January 3, 20241 yr comment_87504 9 hours ago, applejw said: No issues that can't be attributed to temporary cognitive disunion. The instruments do what they are supposed to do and it makes it much smoother for the interfaced result review in Soft. We don't have it set up as Chemistry and Hematology do - we do have to review and complete the result even if normal and/or negative. But one less step for us helps a lot. Yes, Agree. Doing so we validate the interpretation of result.
November 4, 2024Nov 4 comment_91121 Yes we do As our blood bank system verify results from the previous history and move to supervisor verification incase of discrepancy. ALL routine cases are auto verify. For first time cases two groups are mandatory before allowing for compatibility testing . This is all done by Panacea blood banking management information system
Create an account or sign in to comment