NEQAS QC in Diamed

[jjnazareth]

Hi

We did the NEQAS qc manually and patien3 showed positive reactions in cell 2 and cell 3.We repeated the same sample in DiaMed gel station and it reported positive reaction only in cells 2, cell3 was negative.Confused:confused::confused:.Any thoughts

[RR1]

Are you referring to a current exercise or previous one that has already been submitted and closed? If it's a current one- then it really isn't appropriate to discuss this with colleagues, but to make your own conclusions from your local investigations, as you would do in the situation that this was an actual patient.

Remember, the purpose of NEQAS is to test our systems and find potentially problem areas for improvement- not just to get the correct result.

Might be an idea to record this as a quality incident for further investigating and checking your manual techniques vs automated- especially if the same Diamed system is being used. Was the sample tested on the analyser using cold LISS or screening cells that may have deteriorated?

best wishes

Edited January 21, 2011 by RR1
forgot something

[jjnazareth]

thanks for the reply.As we are validating the DiaMed we panicked with the results it gave, thats the reason i posted that mesage.Screening cells are infact new ones and no haemolysis.Do you use DiaMed if so can you help me on how you run your routine work.We are validating our Diamed and its just me who has used it before and others have no idea how it is being run in other lab (i mean the routine work).If you can give me some info on how to run it with the HOST on it will be very helpful.Thanks

[RR1]

Hi Jeby,

We only use Diamed for manual techniques, so unfortunately I can't help you with the SOPs for automated running, but i'm somebody on this site could. Have noticed in another of your posts that your LIMS is Meditech, it would be a good idea to ask both Diamed/Biorad and Meditech companies to give you a list of other users with a similar set up, so you could contact the lab managers directly for documents etc.

Have you repeated the automated screen-on the analyser, and if so are the results still different?

[jjnazareth]

hi

Thanks , it's still the same, both analyzers gave the same result.Waiting for the BB manager to comeback from hols and speak to her.Hope it will be alright.

[RR1]

If you look at the automated card visually is there any sign of agglutination- might just be too weak for the camera to identify, or is the well completely negative?

[galvania]

Hello Jeby

First question - did you use the SAME cells in the Gel station and in the manual technique?

Second question - Have you repeated the manual technique?

Thirs question - How is your INTERNAL quality control faring on the gel station and manually?

[John Eggington]

You could argue that a screen is just that, a screen. It's positive, so identify the antibody by panelling the sample. Cold comfort, maybe, but a positive screen is all you're after, isn't it (preferably not a false pos!)?

[jjnazareth]

Hello Jeby

First question - did you use the SAME cells in the Gel station and in the manual technique?

Second question - Have you repeated the manual technique?

Thirs question - How is your INTERNAL quality control faring on the gel station and manually?

you are right anna we used different cells for Diamed, simple mistake.Thanks for highlighting.

[RR1]

You could argue that a screen is just that, a screen. It's positive, so identify the antibody by panelling the sample. Cold comfort, maybe, but a positive screen is all you're after, isn't it (preferably not a false pos!)?

Hi John, but surely a discrepancy like this,even though only in a screen should always be investigated, and in this case it was easily solved. However, in a different situation this could have led to failing to detect an antibody.

It's good that Jeby noticed and questioned this, and I would have thought that our staff should always compare and question the screen reactions to the ID panel and be able to explain differences.

[John Eggington]

You are quite right, Rasmi. My post was an awkward way of suggesting that id-ing the antibody first may help to explain the result (the original post did not state that an id had been done)