Jump to content

Westgard Rules in Hematology


Recommended Posts

I have been out of the lab for a number of years and am trying to understand some of the changes since I left, particularly in hematology.  Does anyone set up Westgard rules on hematology analyzers?  If so, could you explain how you do it and on whichever instrument you use?  When I was in the lab it was only used in Chemistry so this is new to me.


If you could provide information on how you handle QC in hematology these days, I would really appreciate being brought up to date.  When I was in the lab we ran 3 levels of liquid controls on each shift.  We would look at our L-J charts and determine if controls were in or out.  We also ran a patient blood throughout the day to assure instrument precsions.  Is this still being done? 


I may be going back into the lab and would really like to feel a little more current.  I hate to date myself, but my first automated hematology instrument was a Coulter S and we also  used a ZBI for platelets.  The newer instrument are really marvelous. Instrumentation has come a long way.


Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share their knowledge and expertise with this dinosaur.


Robin  :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have no rules set up for our hematology qc.  I do look at the levy-jennings to identify shifts or trends, but generally speaking rules like 10x or 4,1s aren't very helpful.  In the world of hematology, being part of a qc pool is the most important tool (for Beckman users, it's IQAP).  Comparison of your values to the "pool" is much more important than package insert means.  Having multiple instruments is also helpful for comparison. We run a patient check once a day - i have 3 instruments, so at any given time, between IQAP reports and patient check numbers i can figure out which instrument is showing a problem.

Because our standards in NY require at least one level of control every 8 hours, +/- 15 minutes(!) we have taken to running one level of control every 6 hours - it is actually saving a lot of money (we were running 2 levels every 8 hours).  If there's ever a problem with the one level of control, they can run the other levels as a troubleshooting measure.

Hope that helps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We use pretty much the same standard rules that we do for chemistry -- QC is OK if within 2 SDs of the mean.  Target means are set by running a new QC lot in parallel with the current lot.


As far as frequency: for coag and hema, in the US, I believe we are required to run at least 2 levels a day and one level every 8 hours.  We also do a mode-to-mode check every 8 hours to "QC" our open mode.


Peer review is another requirement for regulated tests, this is satisfied by comparing QC results to peer groups, as has ben mentioned.  Proficiency testing is another form of peer review.  We only use XB for troubleshooting.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Similar Content

    • By Skye
      Hi Everyone,
      I just joined the website and I am hoping that my fellow laboratorians can help me. I recently finished a Joint Commission survey at my facility and I need to write (1) an IQCP for the media that we use in the Microbiology Department as well as (2) an IQCP for the Beckman Coulter MicroScan. I was hoping that someone had a template that would help point me in the right direction. Of course, aspects of the risk assessment (e.g. testing personnel, environment and so forth) will be specific to my facility but it would be great to have something to help point me in the right direction.
      So if anyone could provide me a copy of their template that would be FANTASTIC!!!
      I REALLY need an IQCP for the Media and one for the Microscan would be fantastic as well!  
      Thanks in advance everyone!!
    • By SMILLER
      We have been having problems for the last month or so with D-dimer QC on our TOPS analyzers.  We are using the regular HemosiL reagents and controls, and no matter what we do, the QC runs with a Mean close to the upper insert range limit on both controls.  Does anyone else have this problem?  
      We have been using these analyzers and IL products for over a year and now this happens. We are wondering if the formulation of the QC has changed.  Once reconstituted, they are supposed to be good for a month in the fridge -- it appears to us that they may be only reliable for about a day. 
      Thanks, Scott
    • By heathervaught
      I need some guidance!  I did a quick search of the forums for any discussion about this, and the most current posting was in 2010.  I'm wondering if anyone has any new information, new experiences, or any advice about CAP TRM.40120.  The note states "...all analysts participate in QC on a regular basis."
      How frequently is "regular"?  For example, when I was looking to complete our annual Competency assessment in September (don't ask...), I was looking for evidence that each individual who performs MTS testing had performed MTS QC.  There were some employees who had not performed MTS QC yet in 2016.  I'm inclined to say that someone who hasn't performed QC in at least 8+ months is not participating in QC on a regular basis.  Being new to my role, I'm just not sure how the assessors interpret this standard, and how others provide evidence of compliance. 
    • By jeloweryii
      Hemo bioscience, an established and growing biotechnology company headquartered in Research Triangle Park (RTP), North Carolina, develops and manufactures immunohematology reagents and related products for the world wide transfusion diagnostics market. Our customers include industry partners, reference laboratories, buying groups, hospital blood banks, and donor centers. Hemo bioscience's in-house research, development and manufacturing activities are led by blood bank trained scientists who are committed to improving the science of transfusion technology.
      When life depends on reliable results, you can rely on Hemo bioscience - "The science in blood banking"
    • By Lingkwyz
      Hi guys,
      I haven't been exposed as a blood banker for quite some time, so please bear with me. Recently, our institution had a case of transfusion reaction (lower back pain) with one unit of PRBCs. The testing details are as follows:
      History: Non-specific reaction (Multiple encounters)
      Pre Transfusion Sample
      Solid Phase : 2 of 3 cels 2+ (Positive
      Gel Card (Regular) : Negative
      Gel Card (Enzyme) : Negative
      Dx: Non-Specific Reaction, all siginificant antibodies excluded
      Transfusion Reaction Investigation Sample
      Solid Phase : 2 of 3 cels 2+ (suggestive with Anti-Jka)
      Gel Card (Regular) : Positive (2+) Minimum grade (Clear-cut Anti-Jka)
      Gel Card (Enzyme) : Positive (4+)  (Clear-cut Anti-Jka)
      DAT (Gel Card) : Positive
      Elution Testing: Anti-Jka Detected
      Dx: Anti-Jka
      Analyzing the encounter, me and a colleague, through curiosity re-ran the Pre Transfusion Sample:
      Pre Transfusion Sample: (Curiosity Run)
      Solid Phase : 2 of 3 cels 2+ (suggestive with Anti-Jka)
      Gel Card (Regular) : Positive ; Wp Minimum grade (suggestive with Anti-Jka)
      Gel Card (Enzyme) : Positive ; 1+ Minimum grade (suggestive with Anti-Jka)
      Taking all details, I could presume that the Gel Card  results (both regular and enzyme, which I believe was ran at the same time) of the 1st Pre Transfusion Sample was the jinx. So confidence to the testing method lies to the daily QC of the Gel Card which was ran first thing of the day. Now, I'm asking, if Solid-phase technology could incorporate a positive control and negative control to each strip of testing, why aren't there any on the Gel Card Method? Next, if the Solid-phase technology could also incorporate a "system trap" to ensure the addition of patient's sample to the testing, through it's Capture LISS, why cant the Gel Card  do so? I believe that seeing an all-negative resulted panel would be enough for some people for exclusion. Lastly, if reagents aren't available for the Gel card method to ensure the addition of plasma, should our institution enforce a backup procedure that could ensure the reviewer that none of the essential components of the testing (e.g. Patient's plasma) is not missed?
      Hoping for the masters..
      Thanks !
  • Advertisement

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.