We currently use a 2F degree rise in temperature as an indicator for reporting a transfusion reaction. We are converting to a new computer which uses degrees C. That would mean a 16.6C increase in temperature! That does not seem possible. Any ideas? Thanks.

1 degree C = 1.8F, so if you are using 2F now, you can switch to 1 C. See AABB Technical Manual 17ty ed page 728. Good luck with the new computer system.

We also use 1 C for transfusion reactions.

We currently use a 2F degree rise in temperature as an indicator for reporting a transfusion reaction. We are converting to a new computer which uses degrees C. That would mean a 16.6C increase in temperature! That does not seem possible. Any ideas? Thanks.

Sorry Mary**, but I think your maths is a little awry.

I just tried to use an on-line coverter, put in 2oF and tried to covert it to oC and got 16.6. If, however, you put in 98oF and then 100oF, you get a very different answer - 98oF comes out as 36.7oC and 100oF comes out as 37.8oC.

Malcolm! If u will put 2F, the converter will give u the equal temp of C, that is -16.6C. To get equal amount of C to 2 degree F, U have divide 2/1.8=1.1 and round up to 1. So we use 1 c rise of temp than 37 C as a marker in transfusion reaction.

Yes, agreed. I missed out the minus sign.

Like Doglover says, 1oC = 1.8oF. We use 1.8oF. And has anyone besides me wondered why, in the USA, despite the universal use of Celsius in the lab (we never ask if that antibody is active at 98.6oF!) and elswhere around the hospital, we still measure patient temperatures in Fahrenheit?

I have had the same thought. If the physicians offices and hospitals started telling the patients what their temperature is in degrees Celcius it would be a short time until the public was much more comfortable with the Celcius equivilant. The US has been messing with metric conversion for over 40 years now and still have not made the transition.

2oF rise from 98.6oF

OR

1oC rise from 37oC

We currently use a 2F degree rise in temperature as an indicator for reporting a transfusion reaction. We are converting to a new computer which uses degrees C. That would mean a 16.6C increase in temperature! That does not seem possible. Any ideas? Thanks.

2oF rise from 98.6oF

OR

1oC rise from 37oC

We use 2oF or 1.1 o C

We use 2oF or 1.1 o C

Nursing has a tough enough time calculating a 2oC rise with the decimals, i.e. 99.2 to 100.8 = ??? [scratch, scratch], so it's just easier to give them whole numbers to work with.

Nursing has a tough enough time calculating a 2oC rise with the decimals, .

LOL. How many times we get a transfusion workup because temp went from 98.6 to 98.8: That's 2 degrees, right?

HI Folks,

In Ireland, the recommendation is 1.50C. I think that comes from the National Haemovigilance Office. Obviously a rise of 1 or above you would be proactive in managing the patient anyway, but the lab comes into play when we get the 1.5 rise (or greater) with a workup due to possible Tx reaction .

Cheers

Eoin

1.5oC seems more sensible to me Eoin, 1oC seems too small a rise. There would be too many transfusion reaction referrals for a 1oC rise in my opinion.

Steve

LOL. How many times we get a transfusion workup because temp went from 98.6 to 98.8: That's 2 degrees, right?

Our criteria is greater than 2 degrees F AND

over 100 degrees F. That way we get away with those increases that are not even considered febrile.

Yeah, that problem with zero being freezing in C but 32 being freezing in F means you can't use a converter on the difference between temps.

We use 1C rise, but I like the idea of having to exceed 38C which is 100.4F. I wonder if that is too high. 100 F would be 37.78C. But I don't want nurses to have to worry about subtracting decimals too much.