electronic crossmatch

[Antrita]

Do any of you require a second draw by a different phlebotomist on patients that do not have a historical blood type? We have been working towards an electronic crossmatch and have the staffing to redraw them. Our sister hospitals are much smaller and frequently have just one person drawing blood. I have been told we all have to do the same procedure so I can not ask for a second specimen by a different phleobotomist. I think this is asking for trouble. To me it's like proof

reading your own work

Antrita

[David Saikin]

I don't see the need for a 2nd phlebotomist. I understand why you like it, but . . . your policy will make it tough on your smaller associates.

[spookyshaw]

Our lab has been using electronic crossmatch system for a few years now. At this point we do not require a second blood sample drawn by a different phlebotomist when a patient comes in without any ABO/Rh history in our LIS. We just have another tech perform a confirmation ABO/Rh on these patients.

[Byfaith]

Could you perhaps have a witness to the second draw recorded when the same phlebotomist is used? Our system records the Computer sign-in ID for each draw (written on the tube label at bedside). On the rare occasion that the same phleb. or IV nurse draws, a witness ID can be recorded instead. We do not currently use E-crossmatch but do use a second draw for unknown patients.

[mjshepherd]

We have two people verify the identity of the patient at the time of draw for patients who do not have a historical type on record, they each initial on the lables confimring patient ID. Anyone can be the second person for verification, nurse tech, nurse, other phleb or tech.

[adiescast]

We do a second draw at a different time. This can be any recent sample, so we fish in Hematology and Chemistry before we make the phlebotomist go back.

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

Why is it called "electronic cross-match", when there is no cross-match involved?

Sorry to be pedantic (I know it's not like me to be pedantic!), but should it not be called "electronic issue"?

[Antrita]

The computer gets to decide what unit the patient is going to get. Though I do not believe the computer will accept any blame if there is an error.

[Malcolm Needs ☆]

True, the computer "makes the decision" (based on a program written by a human) - but the computer does NOT perform a cross-match.

[Antrita]

I think it is just to save time, as calling it " a computer asigned blood when there are negative antibody screen results" is too long. Now that we are trying to adopt the "LEAN' system, I can say that we are saving time and not just being a bit lazy.

[David Saikin]

The computer verified ABO compatibility between unit and patient.

[COTTONBALL]

Why is it called "electronic cross-match", when there is no cross-match involved?

Sorry to be pedantic (I know it's not like me to be pedantic!), but should it not be called "electronic issue"?

"Electronic issue" = logic, but ya gotta let some things go Mr. Malcolm:)