Trm.30575

[drsbright]

I have a question over our policy to address the TRM.30575 standard.

CLEARLY, this requirement is not about misidentification. It is about incorrectly mistyping a sample.

What are all of you doing about this?????.....what constitutes a first sample vs a second sample? ....Is historical data considered a "1st" time typing?

SMB

Indianapolis, Indiana

Edited November 5, 2008 by Cliff
Edited to make more socially acceptable

[jhaig]

I understand your frustration about this CAP requirement and need help. That's what we're here for.

To me, mistyping a sample is the same thing as misidentification of the

patient. The sample and the patient have to be correct or you're going to have a problem.

A historical blood type counts as the first 'type'. A current specimen on the same patient can be used as the second type.

To address this requirement, we adopted a policy to re-draw patients for a second sample drawn at a separate time if the patient does not have a historical blood type on file. If the patient has a specimen in another department which is correctly labeled, we can use that specimen for the second specimen. If there is no time to get another specimen, the patient would get transfused with group O until a second specimen can be drawn.

There have been many threads with long discussions regarding this new CAP requirement which you may find very useful in this forum.