For at least the 26 years I have worked here when we turned out an antibody ID, we included statements about the % of units compatible, whether it is clinically significant, and , if an appropriate patient, whether it is known to cause HDFN. In the old days this was a form letter from the pathologist, so you could argue that it was a true "path interp." I guess. It got turned into canned comments when we went to a computer system.

Does anyone else do this? I wonder if it is time to stop except in unusual cases where more explanation is needed.

We currently only report the antibody and a chartable comment regarding the need to allow us extra time... If the % compatibility is low, I usually mention it over the phone to the physician or nurse.

We have considered giving an antibody card to patients who have a significant antibody. We never developed a good mechanism of when to send it, how to avoid sending multiple cards to the same patient, how to provide an explanation, etc. I think it is a good idea, working out the logistics have just gotten lower on the totem pole I guess.

So back to your original question, we typically only send out a letter when a pregnant woman has an antibody, clinically significant or insignificant, with an explanation. This is generated by the supervisor, the pathologist is not involved.

No. They usually don't understand or don't retain the info. We handle special cases verbally, usually through th pathologist.

We do this as part of our original antibody ID reporting. We generate them from "canned comments" or as we now know them in Misys "English Text Codes". The last comment is "To Be Reviewed by Pathologist". This then goes to a pathologist who reviews, dates, and initials the comment. In Misys 6.2, we will be including this comment as part of the Blood Bank Administrative Data file so information is readily available to the tech performing Blood Bank testing. We find it relatively easy to do and good documentation.

Belva in Lincoln, NE

For at least the 26 years I have worked here when we turned out an antibody ID, we included statements about the % of units compatible, whether it is clinically significant, and , if an appropriate patient, whether it is known to cause HDFN. In the old days this was a form letter from the pathologist, so you could argue that it was a true "path interp." I guess. It got turned into canned comments when we went to a computer system.

Does anyone else do this? I wonder if it is time to stop except in unusual cases where more explanation is needed.

we did something similar MANY eons ago, but gave it up a LOOOONG time ago. we just report the antibody, no other info. docs call when interested, but as you may guess, this is very rare.

We send a newly ID'd antibodies back to our pathologists for a consult. I have worked places that did not do this, but at my current hospital, they always have, so I just continued the practice.

I would guess doctors are likely to read comments from the pathologist.

LF

We just ID the antibody. Usually, if there is a problem, we'll contact the nurse and let them know why it's taking longer than usual but that's about it.

For newly identified antibodies, our technologists report the antibody ID, then the BB pathologist enters his consult comments.

Our medical director gives a pretty good consultation for each antibody ID (he is RGU-aware). He mentions percent compatibility in the general population as part of the consultation. The doctors love it.

BC

Sorry for the late post (years later) but I was browsing and saw this question. Mable our late pathologist used to do as yours. It was always beautifully written. Full of great information that only a true blood banker could appreciate. Our 'new' pathologists are way too busy for that but will answer any questions that any physician has about an antibody identification but boy I miss those Path reviews .... just reminiscing about the good ol' days!