I'd say that you have to consider the capabilities of your staff. I do ask my techs to use the microscope for DATs. They are all generalists and their time in blood bank is limited. Some of them shake too hard, in spite of my best efforts to fix that problem. They use a mirror, but some don't use a mirror well. So, in order to not miss weak positive reactions they use the scope with a tube roller. We also have a definition for microscopic agglutination (right out of the Technical Manual) that says it is a clump of 4-5 cells (though I do tell them that they should be cautious with this - if tests look suspicious, check them out, don't blindly ignore what you see). When I train, I stress the difference between a clump of cells that are friendly/kissing and a clump of cells that 'love each other' (agglutination). They do very well - false positives are rare. I don't see a lot of unnecessary work being done.
RWOOD57 reacted to AMcCord in Direct antiglobulin testI'd say that you have to consider the capabilities of your staff. I do ask my techs to use the microscope for DATs. They are all generalists and their time in blood bank is limited. Some of them shake too hard, in spite of my best efforts to fix that problem. They use a mirror, but some don't use a mirror well. So, in order to not miss weak positive reactions they use the scope with a tube roller. We also have a definition for microscopic agglutination (right out of the Technical Manual) that says it is a clump of 4-5 cells (though I do tell them that they should be cautious with this - if tests look suspicious, check them out, don't blindly ignore what you see). When I train, I stress the difference between a clump of cells that are friendly/kissing and a clump of cells that 'love each other' (agglutination). They do very well - false positives are rare. I don't see a lot of unnecessary work being done.