jmphil4

I just answered this question.


My Score PASS  

I just answered this question.


My Score PASS  

I just answered this question.


My Score PASS  

I just answered this question.


My Score PASS  

I wouldn't suggest that with all non-specific reactions. Just if you get an impression that there might be a kidd, it's better to error on the side of caution. I've certainly called my fair share of unknown/non-specific reactions. I've seen several antibodies who don't react even with all of the homozygous expressions. Honestly, sometimes its not much more than your blood bank "spidey-sense" that leads you to the antibody ID, when you would have been completely correct (per SOPs) to call something unknown.

I wouldn't suggest that with all non-specific reactions. Just if you get an impression that there might be a kidd, it's better to error on the side of caution. I've certainly called my fair share of unknown/non-specific reactions. I've seen several antibodies who don't react even with all of the homozygous expressions. Honestly, sometimes its not much more than your blood bank "spidey-sense" that leads you to the antibody ID, when you would have been completely correct (per SOPs) to call something unknown.

Yes, of course, which is why you MUST use enzyme-treated group O red cells (screening cells - not just one example of group O red cells) as a negative control.  If you do, and the group O red cells give a reaction, you still don't know the ABO group, until you have sorted out the specificity, and then used reverse grouping cells - and group O - cells negative for the cognate antigen.  If you don't use a negative control - you should be sacked!!!!!!!!!!
 
Nothing personal!

My game plan with the kidds is to honor what antibody I think I see (assuming it agrees with their phenotype). Because titers with kidds are notorious for falling quickly, and their transfusion reactions can be particularly unpleasant, I always think its better to be safe than sorry.
 

There is NO such thing as a "classic" picture of a "Passive Anti-D".  Whomsoever told you this is a danger.
I know that our (UK) Guidelines do not apply in Saudi Arabia, but I would urge you to have a look at the BCSH Guidelines on antibody testing in pregnancy and the RCOG Green Top Guideline Number 65, on the same subject, by putting these into your search engine, and they both will confirm what I say (I KNOW the BCSH one will, because I was one of the authors!!!!).
 

I will try to collate all your inputs in one word: "PRAGMATISM".
I would rather say that as I learn from you guys, I always bump back into this word. Well.. wait! Hold your horses.. I might get a double-dosed sermon with this, but let me try to explain further:
Although there are SOPs, AABB Methods, Guidelines, PPs, (Policies and Procedures), I could only imagine how you do your stuff in the field we all love. Its that: "Hold my beer, I got this!" moment that really starts it all, then comes the protocol for Kidd, or the necessity of  enhancement techniques or the pesky procedures for adsorptions.
If I may quote Malcolm's reply on one of my started  threads:
 
The "worth" this great person might be pertaining to is that: Wait-a-minute.. I-know-this-antibody-moment, or the "Oh I see you Mister antibody.." moment plus the eureka dance..
Though its  the science is what brings us together, I just love the way you how share your approach and "hunches" to our field. I might be too premature to this field myself. I need to develop that 3rd eye. That  stare to the antigram that looks beyond to the pluses and minuses. Nevertheless, I learned a lot from all of you guys.

Give it about 10-20 years playing with the things and listening to people like Malcolm - you'll get there too!  

I wouldn't suggest that with all non-specific reactions. Just if you get an impression that there might be a kidd, it's better to error on the side of caution. I've certainly called my fair share of unknown/non-specific reactions. I've seen several antibodies who don't react even with all of the homozygous expressions. Honestly, sometimes its not much more than your blood bank "spidey-sense" that leads you to the antibody ID, when you would have been completely correct (per SOPs) to call something unknown.

I wouldn't suggest that with all non-specific reactions. Just if you get an impression that there might be a kidd, it's better to error on the side of caution. I've certainly called my fair share of unknown/non-specific reactions. I've seen several antibodies who don't react even with all of the homozygous expressions. Honestly, sometimes its not much more than your blood bank "spidey-sense" that leads you to the antibody ID, when you would have been completely correct (per SOPs) to call something unknown.

I wouldn't suggest that with all non-specific reactions. Just if you get an impression that there might be a kidd, it's better to error on the side of caution. I've certainly called my fair share of unknown/non-specific reactions. I've seen several antibodies who don't react even with all of the homozygous expressions. Honestly, sometimes its not much more than your blood bank "spidey-sense" that leads you to the antibody ID, when you would have been completely correct (per SOPs) to call something unknown.

I wouldn't suggest that with all non-specific reactions. Just if you get an impression that there might be a kidd, it's better to error on the side of caution. I've certainly called my fair share of unknown/non-specific reactions. I've seen several antibodies who don't react even with all of the homozygous expressions. Honestly, sometimes its not much more than your blood bank "spidey-sense" that leads you to the antibody ID, when you would have been completely correct (per SOPs) to call something unknown.

My game plan with the kidds is to honor what antibody I think I see (assuming it agrees with their phenotype). Because titers with kidds are notorious for falling quickly, and their transfusion reactions can be particularly unpleasant, I always think its better to be safe than sorry.
 

Better safe than sorry is my game plan, too.

My game plan with the kidds is to honor what antibody I think I see (assuming it agrees with their phenotype). Because titers with kidds are notorious for falling quickly, and their transfusion reactions can be particularly unpleasant, I always think its better to be safe than sorry.
 

Our plan for the patients is to do a preliminary type and antibody screen, along with a full phenotype, before they begin treatment. Once they begin the medication, we will perform elutions on the patients. This should allow us to identify any newly formed antibodies that wouldn't be detected with the DTT treated cells. 

I know of no regulation preventing this, but I've always heard directed donations may not be as safe as other volunteer donors due to pressure to donate...I'd think this would be a similar situation, people will feel pressured to not tell the truth on the donor questionaire.