Jump to content

Automated and Manual Bench QC


kaleigh_b

Recommended Posts

We recently implemented an Ortho Vision in our lab and are now performing manual gel method as a "secondary" method. If we are using the same lot numbers of reagent red cells and gel cards on the instrument and on the manual bench, do we need to QC both methods? Or is the QC on the instrument sufficient?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I always considered the human interaction to be part of the equation for performing QC.  I don't recall anything that specifically stated that but I could not see where the human was not an integral part of the process.  So in my lab the manual method would be QC'd as well. Your secondary methods only need to be QC'd on the day of use.  

:coffeecup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QC on Vision is sufficient. If all reagents and card lots are the same, the only difference is if the analyzer pipettes or a tech, it is all the same methodology. I verified this with CAP. We have had a Vision and manual gel since 2016, running QC on Vision only. We do also use the tube method and QC that separately as it is a different methodology. Curious as to which regulatory agency states Gel methodology is different if manually pipetted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So in that case John, does each tech have to do their own QC because the human factor varies amongst humans. We view the Vision as just a hard working tech that works 24/7 and rarely takes vacation and that always scans its specimen barcodes without fail (the specimen verification is the human part of the equation I feel safer having the Vision performing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use DiaMed tech. Manual work is read using the Banjo card reader. Reagents are all scanned into the IH.com software to give a full audit trail - user, batch numbers, expiry.

Unless the QC has been performed (identical to the analyser) and read the results have a QC watermark across them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 11:15 AM, NancyC said:

QC on Vision is sufficient. If all reagents and card lots are the same, the only difference is if the analyzer pipettes or a tech, it is all the same methodology. I verified this with CAP. We have had a Vision and manual gel since 2016, running QC on Vision only. We do also use the tube method and QC that separately as it is a different methodology. Curious as to which regulatory agency states Gel methodology is different if manually pipetted?

JCAHO in California.  I agree with this only because the manual QC not only qcs you gel cards but your manual pipets, manual pipetting and your mts centrifuge.  It is a different system.  However, if CAP says what you are doing is fine you should have that documented because if I was inspecting you I would cite.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/26/2022 at 11:15 AM, NancyC said:

QC on Vision is sufficient. If all reagents and card lots are the same, the only difference is if the analyzer pipettes or a tech, it is all the same methodology. I verified this with CAP. We have had a Vision and manual gel since 2016, running QC on Vision only. We do also use the tube method and QC that separately as it is a different methodology. Curious as to which regulatory agency states Gel methodology is different if manually pipetted?

Here is my response from CAP today, 4/28/2022:

 

Good afternoon David;

Thank you for contacting the CAP. Each test platform/system must have QC performed each day of testing. Regardless of the lots of reagents, the two systems you mentioned are separate. When I worked in the Blood Banks, we used the same Immucor reagents for the Echo instrument and the bench. We still performed the QC for each system. If you have any further questions, please feel free to reach out. Happy Lab Week!

Linda Whaley, MLS (ASCP)
Take a tour of our accreditation resources!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2022 at 5:54 AM, RichU said:

We use DiaMed tech. Manual work is read using the Banjo card reader. Reagents are all scanned into the IH.com software to give a full audit trail - user, batch numbers, expiry.

Unless the QC has been performed (identical to the analyser) and read the results have a QC watermark across them.

We do the same using the same reagents (but called Bio-Rad) and the SAXO (similar to the Banjo, i think).  Our reagents are all scanned into the IH-Com when using the SAXO reader - as long as the IH-500 uses the same reagents the QC flag is absent.

sandra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, David Saikin said:

We QC the reagents.  The assay gets the QA treatment during its implementation.

Thank you, David. As I suspected. So why do two test systems using the same lot numbers of reagents need to be subjected to daily QC ? Let the debate begin.....:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, exlimey said:

Thank you, David. As I suspected. So why do two test systems using the same lot numbers of reagents need to be subjected to daily QC ? Let the debate begin.....:)

When you say assay, that is, to me, a test, like Type and Screen.   Yes, we are using the same reagents but they are being used differently (automation vs manual).  Your QC in this instance validates the entire test system. 



Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/29/2022 at 11:30 AM, David Saikin said:

When you say assay, that is, to me, a test, like Type and Screen.   Yes, we are using the same reagents but they are being used differently (automation vs manual).  Your QC in this instance validates the entire test system. 

But, but, but....you said "We QC the reagents". The equipment/instruments are qualified and deemed functional through calibration/certification/validation, and presumably, preventative maintenance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Advertisement

×
×
  • 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.