Equipment and QC Log Review - Training

[rmthorkelson]

Hello. I am the forum equivalent of a "longtime listener, first time caller."

 

I am looking for materials or an outline that can be used when training techs as reviewers of equipment usage and QC logs in a blood bank.

 

Our facility experiences a high degree of log errors that are missed by reviewers. I have been tasked with finding information that is available beyond what is in the CFR, cGMP, AABB Standards and Technical Manual for a training module.

 

We are a large facility with at least 100 techs. Not all of them are reviewers but they are almost all expected to complete a log entry as part of their job responsibilities.

 

I appreciate any ideas or sources you may know of or have available. I have exhausted my search terms.

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

[SMILLER]

I wonder exactly what sort of issues you are having? Are you saying that when techs forget to log a temp that a reviewer afterward is missing it? Or that results of QC testing are nor being logged and then not noted by a reviewer?

We do have billings and many other things reveiwed here,but the only important reviewing at the bench level involves going over transfusion tags for completness and/or missed transfusion reactions, and reviewing patient work.

I may be missing something, but I would think that if routine stuff like maintenance or wether or not QC was done is the responsibility of the person performing the task. If that is not being done, you need to go after those techs, rather than someone reviewing logs after the fact.

Scott

[Deny Morlino]

Are you referring to paper logs, electronic logs, or both?  For paper logs, an overlay template with the areas to be filled in cut out of the template is a handy tool (nursing loves the one the have here for checking completeness of transfusion record).  If you are talking electronic records, most software systems have reports available that can be custom defined and saved so that minimal changes (i.e. date ranges) are necessary.

 

As far as training goes, buy in by the people reviewing is paramount to success.  If the reviewers are just going through the motions, failure to catch all the omissions is likely.

[rmthorkelson]

I wonder exactly what sort of issues you are having? Are you saying that when techs forget to log a temp that a reviewer afterward is missing it? Or that results of QC testing are nor being logged and then not noted by a reviewer?

I may be missing something, but I would think that if routine stuff like maintenance or wether or not QC was done is the responsibility of the person performing the task. If that is not being done, you need to go after those techs, rather than someone reviewing logs after the fact.

Scott

Scott, it's true that the onus is placed on the person initiating and completing the log entries. But, as people are human, they will make errors through distraction or negligence. Reviewers are held accountable precisely because their responsibility through daily or monthly reviews is to ensure the records are complete, accurate, and correct.

I appreciate your perspective but I don't see this so much that we're "going after" as much as we're looking for a couple of tools to assist our reviewers. They are often busy within the shift and there are many logs to review on a daily basis.

 

Renée