ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the clinical setting, for convenience of transfusion, blood is requested in advance, even though 'the type and screen' method has been used for the efficient supply of blood. We employed the precedent antibody screening test method for all patients who were scheduled for surgery, and compared the disposal rate and the clear rate pre and post-activity. METHODS: We evaluated the disposal rate and the cancellation ratio before and after employment of the precedent antibody screening test method for all patients expected to undergo surgery. A comparison of the frequency and type of side effects of transfusion was also performed. RESULTS: The disposal rate and the cancellation ratio showed a decrease, from 1.48% to 1.29%, and from 17.0% to 11.0%. No significant change was observed in the cause of disposal and the side effects of transfusion. CONCLUSION: Enforcement of a precedent antibody screening test resulted in a decrease in the disposal and clear rates. In addition, it aided in reduction of the amount of work performed at the blood bank by establishing the proper utilization of blood and reducing unnecessary cross match testing. There appears to be no problem regarding the stability of transfusion. However, for the sample showing a positive result on the antibody screening test, an effort to decrease the side effects of transfusion, such as exhaustive cross-matching and increasing the rate of identification, would be needed.
Subject(s)
Humans , Blood Banks , Blood Transfusion , Employment , Mass ScreeningABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: In the clinical setting, for convenience of transfusion, blood is requested in advance, even though 'the type and screen' method has been used for the efficient supply of blood. We employed the precedent antibody screening test method for all patients who were scheduled for surgery, and compared the disposal rate and the clear rate pre and post-activity. METHODS: We evaluated the disposal rate and the cancellation ratio before and after employment of the precedent antibody screening test method for all patients expected to undergo surgery. A comparison of the frequency and type of side effects of transfusion was also performed. RESULTS: The disposal rate and the cancellation ratio showed a decrease, from 1.48% to 1.29%, and from 17.0% to 11.0%. No significant change was observed in the cause of disposal and the side effects of transfusion. CONCLUSION: Enforcement of a precedent antibody screening test resulted in a decrease in the disposal and clear rates. In addition, it aided in reduction of the amount of work performed at the blood bank by establishing the proper utilization of blood and reducing unnecessary cross match testing. There appears to be no problem regarding the stability of transfusion. However, for the sample showing a positive result on the antibody screening test, an effort to decrease the side effects of transfusion, such as exhaustive cross-matching and increasing the rate of identification, would be needed.