LK11 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Hi, We want to eliminate the use of microscope in the blood bank since many techs. read everything microscopically. DAT results are also vary from tech to tech. The use of microscope should be only to read fetal screen. I want to know other's opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donellda Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 I agree with you. We only use the microscope to read our fetal screens although I have noticed some of the old school techs sneaking a peak once in a while. My former supervisor always said if you can't see it with the viewing mirror then it's not there (or at least not worth working up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jssa1891 Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Well, at the risk of being "old school" I have to say that I would want a microscope available in the blood bank. I agree that it should not be used on every crossmatch, but it is still useful in investigating transfusion reactions (mixed field DATs and antigen typings), possible anti -Sda, rouleaux and the occasional tube test that comes off "funny." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donellda Posted February 10, 2006 Share Posted February 10, 2006 Well, at the risk of being "old school" I have to say that I would want a microscope available in the blood bank. I agree that it should not be used on every crossmatch, but it is still useful in investigating transfusion reactions (mixed field DATs and antigen typings), possible anti -Sda, rouleaux and the occasional tube test that comes off "funny." I'm not advocating totally banning microscopes in the blood bank. They can be very useful in investigating rouleaux and other special cases which would definately not be considered "old school". I am referring to individuals who have a hard time letting go of the practice of reading all screens microscopically. We all check that "scratchy" reaction every once in a while under the scope but we don't read every reaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lcsmrz Posted February 11, 2006 Share Posted February 11, 2006 I like to have a microscope available for those "special" occasions ...The real issue is how to interpret things you see under the scope. I don't want techs with a light shake-off overreading things, nor do I want the significant weak or mixed-field reaction missed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John C. Staley Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 One way to remove the microscope from routine use is to replace it with an automated testing instrument. It sure worked for us. since we strted using the ABS2000 in 1999 our microscopes collect dust between KBs and the rare need to check a tube from a panel or DAT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johna Posted February 17, 2006 Share Posted February 17, 2006 Here's another "old schooler" opinion.I also think it's advantageous to have a microscope available for those special situations. This is especially relevant if you have techs rotating through blood bank or who cover several departments on one shift who may not feel fully comfortable turning out a "negative". Of course the other side of the coin is that they may tend to interpret two cells "holding hands" as a "positive". In any case I don't think bb techs should have no access to them at all. 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