shelleyk482 Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 We currently have one blood bank analyzer and use manual gel for backup. I have been offered the opportunity to bring a 2nd piece of automation into the blood bank- a different manufacturer. At first, I totally dismissed the idea but now I'm actually trying to look at the pro's and con's and I would really like some other perspectives on this.My idea at the moment would be to use the analyzer we have now as the primary and to use the 2nd for retypes, as backup for the primary and as secondary methodology for complex samples (we don't do elutions or absorptions). If we have the two analyzers, I don't think I would need to keep a manual backup system. This idea is both intriguing (from a manager's aspect) and disturbing (as a blood banker). All of our techs are generalists and the ones I've discussed this idea with, don't seem to have a problem with the idea of doing maintenance on another machine; they seem to think that this would be faster than doing the QC on the manual gel system.I appreciate all input, ideas, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pbaker Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 We have 2 automated instruments (same manufacturer). One is heavy duty (Galileo) and one is lighter duty (Echo). Automation is not perfect, as I'm sure you know. There are times, even with 2 pieces of equipment that we still need to do testing manually, either due to timing or questionable results on automation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Saikin Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 Can you not get another instrument from your primary automated vendor? I would bet your current vendor would go to great lengths to put another instrument in your facility (rather than one of their competitor's). Why would you want 2 different systems - esp with all generalists, it would seem more practical to have a mirror image b/u than to maintain competencies on 2 different platforms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shelleyk482 Posted February 10, 2011 Author Share Posted February 10, 2011 The more I've thought about it, the more I like the idea of the 2 vendors. This would give me a second automated methodology rather than an automated & a manual. It is highly unlikely that any patient specimen would not be able to be analyzed by both methodology so if I get "iffy" reactions using the primary then I could put it on the secondary. If I have problems with both methodologies (either 2 automated or 1 automated and 1 manual), the specimen would be sent out to the blood center. As far as the generalists using the 2 different analyzers, they already use several different machines in the other areas of the lab, so this really doesn't seem to be a concern for them. We are already maintaining competencies on 3 "platforms": automation, gel & tube. This would just take the gel (and probably the tube) out of the mix.I do appreciate the input. This is allowing me to "think out loud". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John C. Staley Posted February 10, 2011 Share Posted February 10, 2011 On the other hand, as the generalists will tell you, other departments seldom have two of the same instruments as a back up. Usually there is the primary and a back up that is usually from the same vendor but seldom the same model. If your current vendor offers only one instrument then it might make sense to go with a second vendor and the generalists will not struggle with this near as much as dedicated blood banks would. They are much more flexible and I dare any blood banker to dispute that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagle Eye Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 I am with David...I will not keep two different technology in my department(unless I am forced to do so.....)Which one will be your gold standard...If Gel is positive and iffy reaction, if you run same specimen on other instrument(my guess is Echo or Tango)....and if you get it negative...will you call it positive or negative....If you validate provue/echo/tango...you will not see 100% concordance....you will need to choose which one to use as primary...My two cents.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbostock Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 It actually sounds like a good idea to me. I actually like having different methodologies to choose from (some systems perform better with cold agglutinins, rouleaux, etc better than the other).I would probably just keep tube testing (LISS or PeG) as a backup, and just QC those reagents as you use them, not daily. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RWOOD57 Posted February 15, 2011 Share Posted February 15, 2011 We have capture and gel, I love having 2 different methodologies. 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