Baby Banker Posted April 7, 2022 Share Posted April 7, 2022 A question for those of you who have interfaced instruments: are you using autoverification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Saikin Posted April 12, 2022 Share Posted April 12, 2022 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cthherbal ☆ Posted April 13, 2022 Share Posted April 13, 2022 no Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AuntiS Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 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 Ensis01 and cthherbal 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAGNUM Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AMcCord Posted April 14, 2022 Share Posted April 14, 2022 No Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BankerGirl Posted April 19, 2022 Share Posted April 19, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jayinsat Posted April 21, 2022 Share Posted April 21, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ensis01 Posted April 21, 2022 Share Posted April 21, 2022 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applejw Posted April 26, 2022 Share Posted April 26, 2022 We have Ortho Visions and do autoverify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Byfaith Posted January 1 Share Posted January 1 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
applejw Posted January 2 Share Posted January 2 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
globe Posted January 3 Share Posted January 3 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now