English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The turnaround time (TAT) for pre-transfusion testing is important for prompt clinical decision-making. TAT includes the time between the arrival of the sample and the initiation of testing, plus the processing time (PT) required to generate and report a result. The TAT in larger blood banks is mostly dependent upon the capability of the analyzer used. In smaller blood banks, where manual work is often performed, the TAT is dependent on availability and experience of staff, testing resources, and workload. Our site performed a comparative analysis of the ORTHO VISION ®  (Ortho Clinical Diagnostics, Raritan, NJ) and the Echo ®  (Immucor, Norcross, GA) blood bank analyzers, using the TAT and PT of standard blood bank tests as the outcome metrics. Tests were run in various combinations to reflect the standard workflow of a busy hospital transfusion service and under routine and immediate or STAT conditions. We also compared manual versus automated processing TATs for a variety of pre-transfusion tests and antibody titers. We found that the capacity of the VISION to load and run new samples, even while several other tests were ongoing, allowed for faster overall TAT when compared with samples run on the Echo. The PTs of the two analyzers (from load to result) were also compared, and we found them to be equivalent. These findings highlight the inherent flaw in considering only PT when assessing a laboratory’s ability to efficiently and consistently make results available to best meet customer and patient needs. In addition, we observed a tighter distribution of TATs and PTs when the VISION was compared with the Echo analyzer, providing a higher level of predictability for availability of results. Finally, when compared with manual antibody titer testing, the VISION analyzer showed a faster PT.  Immunohematology 2017;33:1–5.

A field analysis trial comparing the turnaround times of routine and STAT red blood cell immunohematology testing