-
Malcolm Needs reacted to a post in a topic:
Second specimen when there is no historical Group & Type
-
One of the most important points for drawing a second specimen (for patient's without historical type) is to reduce the risk of misidentification. It should be a second phlebotomy (because you are repeating the identification process). Misidentification Risk Reduction is a CAP requirement (see TRM.30575). Retyping the same specimen by a different Tech won't accomplish this. -
Eoin, Have you gotten any input re: C/T ratios ? Our surgical services department is the only one that exceeds our cutoff of <2.0. I don't see anything wrong with that, because frankly I'd rather have blood crossmatched on high-risk procedures and then release the units the next day if not needed. Would you be so kind and share your findings of the survey you did? Thank you!
-
Is the use of C/T ratios appropriate for monitoring blood use management in surgical services dept.? I can understand it for inpatients and other departments (dialysis, etc.), but not so for OR...please weigh-in.
-
I agree with David, the RPR is just a screening test and requires a confirmation with a test that actually tests for syphillis (which the FTA does). Since the conf. test is neg, the mother does not have syphilis. The baby doesn't need any more heelsticks than it's already getting.