This is (supposed to be) a reflective diary by a (not very) anonymous biomedical scientist who works somewhere in the south of England. One day this diary may well be submitted to the Health and Care Professions Council as evidence of ongoing continual professional development....
I thought I might have another go at the BTLP-TACT website. I was presented with two cases:
80914 – a seventy-one year old woman undergoing a fem-pop bypass requiring group and save
She grouped as A Rh(D) Positive with a negative antibody screen
13687 – an eighty year old chap in theatre requiring four units of blood immediately.
He grouped as AB Negative with a negative antibody screen. I selected four units of A Rh(D) Negative blood for him.
I
got the green light.
Here’s
an interesting
article. An attempt to standardise the reporting of blood film morphology. At
the risk of appearing cynical, it isn’t the first and it won’t be the last.
But
this one made me sit up and take notice. Someone other than me has finally wondered
why we report anisoocytosis as mild, moderate or marked when the RDW tells you
the same thing but with far more precision.
The
same can be said of hypochromia and MCH, and of macro/micro-cytosis and the MCV. Why wasn't this said years ago?
The
Fritsma Factor newsletter appeared in my in-box today. You can read it by clicking
here.
Now
this *does* have stuff of direct relevance
to me:
The
nice people at “The Oncologist” sent their update today. Much of it went over
my head, but (as I always say) it is
all useful background reading.
|
|
|
|
|
With a couple of minutes spare I thought I might do another BTLP-TACT exercise. It’s daft – I worry about getting this right more than I worry about real crossmatching… and if I get that wrong that could (quite literally) kill someone.
I was presented with two cases:
25982 – a ninety-two year-old chap in the out-patients department requiring a group & saveHe grouped as O Rh(D) Negative with a negative antibody screen61707 – an eighty-eight year-old chap on a medical ward requiring two units of blood tomorrow.
He also grouped as O Rh(D) Negative with a positive antibody screen (positive in all three cells) so I requested antibody panels.The IAT panel was positive in cells 1 3 5 6 9 and 10This could well be an anti-Fy(a) with anti-E but doesn’t exclude anti-Cw or anti-Lu(a)The enzyme panel was positive in cells 3 and five which corresponds with anti-EThis was something of a trick question… when I came to select blood there was none that was negative for all four antigens. If I don’t select blood I get the red light. If I give antigen positive I get the red light…
What should I have done here?
The
nice people at the American Society for Hematology sent their update today.
Perhaps a tad clinical, but background reading is always good stuff. Especially
when it doesn’t cost me a penny.
|
|
|
|
The
IBMS sent their update today. The first article was a revolutionary new way of
administering vaccines by squirting it up the nose… like my dogs have been
getting their vaccinations for years…
Revolutionary…
I didn’t bother with the rest.
Why
do I mention this? I get CPD from a wide range of sources. Much of it isn’t of
any relevance to me. Much like today’s missive from the IBMS.
Look
at it.
What
actual hands-on use is it to me? If they aren’t offering professional indemnity
cover what *exactly* am I getting for the two hundred quid I give them every
year?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
