If the ProVue interprets a well as "?" and sends it to the rack for technologist review, do you repeat the work or modify the results based on visual inspection of the card?

 

 

yes we are doing this modifying result by visual inspection . some time we confirm it by manual or repeat method 

yes we are doing this modifying result by visual inspection . some time we confirm it by manual or repeat method 

Ditto.  There are just too many reasons for the ? to create a single instruction.

We 'stick' the sample and respin it then run on the other analyser and it usually goes

We look at it first then decide. Sometimes there is nothing there at all and we call it negative, but sometimes we repeat it if we aren't sure.

Same as Sko681.  

Oh to be able to amend - we're on electronic issuing now so amending the result on the analyser would stop us doing this We have to keep bashing away until we can get it to transmit unaltered results or we have to do a manual crossmatch.

We usually manually interpret the card, but if the result looks questionable then we will perform tube testing.

Our policy is to repeat screen by gel and do a panel before determining if we are calling screen Neg or Pos. We are strict with this because antibodies have been missed in the past. We had one sample yesterday weak on SC2, tech thought it was visually negative but on ficin panel was a clear anti-E.

Our policy is to repeat screen by gel and do a panel before determining if we are calling screen Neg or Pos. We are strict with this because antibodies have been missed in the past. We had one sample yesterday weak on SC2, tech thought it was visually negative but on ficin panel was a clear anti-E.

 

This is the type of scenario that my techs bring to the discussion; all the anti-Jkas, anti-Es, and anti-Ks that were picked up by repeating the screen. They only feel safe with repeating the gel screen.

 

I guess my questions are:

 

Is manual gel or ProVue gel more sensitive?

How much difference should you expect between manually reviewing a gel card from the ProVue and one done by hand?

In the times that a ProVue "?" led to an actual antibody identification by manual method, how many times was the manual gel card review from the ProVues test card negative?

 

I'm inclined to go the route of Sko681.

It depends on the antibody and we know they are all not textbook perfect sometimes. Es can be naturally occurring. Manual gel vs Provue should theoretically be identical (same reagents) but I think the camera reading the reactions on Provue, is perhaps better than the human eye?

 

Perhaps the card incubated slightly longer on the Provue and antibody just started to be picked up. I only see this every once in awhile. Most repeats we do are fully negative on screen and panel (total of 14 cells tested).

 

Since we really only detected it in Ficin, it could have gone completely missed but I'm glad it didn't.

-Colleen