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....
With a spare few minutes I logged in to the BTLP-TACT software to see if I might get a quick one done. If I’m going to get two done every month I realised I was cutting it fine.
I
was presented with one case – a seventy-six year old woman with PR blood
requiring group & save. She grouped as O Rh(D) Positive with a negative antibody
screen.
I pressed the “exit scenario” button with a sense of “was that it?”; convinced I’d missed something, but I got the green light.
The
nice people at the American Society of Hematology focussed on haemostasis in
today’s update. Perhaps a tad over my head? But then that’s why I need to do
CPD…
|
|
|
|
In
something of a break with tradition the Transfusion News email wasn’t as relevant
to my daily round as it usually is. But still interesting nonetheless…
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
Time for another BTLP-TACT exercise – the boss had sent me an email saying that I hadn’t done one for a while… and to be fair he’s got a point. It is five weeks since I last did anything on there. Which is odd – I can distinctly remember doing one of the morning before the night shift on 3rd August… Just goes to show that you shouldn’t rely on memory… Anyway…
I was presented with two cases.
93616 – an eighty year old chap requiring group & save prior to a splenectomy. He grouped as B Rh(D) Positive with a negative antibody screen
08316 – a forty five year old woman in theatre also requiring group and save
She grouped as O Rh (D) Positive with a negative antibody screen
There was a question asked on the Facebook “Blood Bank Professionals Group” today. The question was about whether or not two blood groups should be obtained on a patient before issuing anti-D, but that is immaterial. One person in the discussion wrote “With the turnover and incompetence we have in our admissions department, I do not trust them to admit the patient to the right medical record number”. In response to that I did type the question “are some people stupid?”, but realised that I didn’t need to post that question. Some people demonstrably are.
It took me less than one minute on Google to find that there were precious few hospitals anywhere near where the author of this comment lives. I’m sure her manager would be horrified to see this in print.
Dear readers – be *extremely* thoughtful about what you post to social media.
The
American Society of Hematology sent a little update on Myeloma today. Some of
it went over my head… Knowing that something has gone over my head shows me where
I need to be focussing my CPD, doesn’t it…
|
The
BBTS sent me an invite to
their annual conference today. I am *incredibly*
cynical about this sort of thing. Whilst in theory there are all sorts of
lectures and symposia being presented, for so many years this sort of this was
just an excuse for a big party with your old mates in works’ time and at works’
expense.
Have
things changed nowadays? I hope so, but at two hundred and fifty quid (plus accommodation costs) it’s a bit
steep. I can’ help but think that far more could be achieved by presenting all
the lectures as podcasts, and those who want a party can sort one out for
themselves.
The
nice people from UKAS sent their update today. You can read it by
clicking here. As always I question its relevance to what I do every day. I
wish someone could explain what use it is in plain simple English…
(Am I being cynical… Even quality managers with
whom I have spoken seem to feel that any benefit of quality management is
deliberately buried under a mountain of buzz-words and catch-phrases…)
The nice people at “The Oncologist” sent their update today. As is always the case with their stuff, much of it went over my head, but some of it made some sense…
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
