Criteria for Improving Safety and Efficacy

  • A. J. Grindon
Part of the Developments in Hematology and Immunology book series (DIHI, volume 22)


When considering automation in the blood bank laboratory, one must ask whether the automation of the given procedure, technique, or instrument will add to the safety of the product tested or the transfusion procedure, the efficacy of the product, or reduce the cost of the procedure. If the cost is not reduced, any increase in cost should be proportionate to an increase in safety or efficacy. In addition, there are specific elements that should be sought in automated systems that are known tobe directly related to safe transfusion practice, such as techniques for assuring that the pilot sample and the unit of blood have been appropriately matched, or that the patient is appropriately matched with the unit of blood at the bedside.


Automate System Blood Type Blood Center Transcription Error Labelling Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Klima A, Smith EP. Large-scale routine automatic blood typing. In: Automation in analytical chemistry, Technicon Symposium. New York, Mediad, 1976: 106–11Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Garretta M, Muller A, Gener J, Matte C, Moullec J. Reliability in automatic determination of the ABO group by the groupamatic system. Vox Sang 1974; 27: 141–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grindon AJ, Liles BA. Center error reduction by recheck of blood type. Transfusion 1981; 21: 199.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brodheim E. Regional blood center automation. Transfusion 1978; 18: 298–303.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holland PV, Schmidt PJ (eds) Standards for blood banks and transfusion services, 12th edition. Arlington, VA, American Association of Blood Banks, 1987.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ellis FR, Friedman LI, Wirak BF, Hellinger MJ, Mallin WS, Greenwalt TJ. A computerized national blood donor deferral register. JAMA 1975; 232: 722–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Severns ML, Brennan JE, Kline LM, Epley KM Pipette cleaning in automated systems. Journal of Automatic Chemistry 1986; 8: 135–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anonymous. DNA diagnosis and the polymerase chain reaction [Editorial]. The Lancet 1988;i:1372–3.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taswell HF, Nicolson LL, Cochran ML. Automated blood typing of patients. Transfusion 1974; 14: 124–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Honig CL, Bove JR. Transfusion-associated fatalities: review of Bureau of Biologics reports 1976–1978. Transfusion 1980; 20: 653–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Sherer PB, Chambers RW, Taswell HF, et al. Automated donor-recipient identification systems as a means of reducing human error in blood transfusion. Transfusion 1977; 17: 586–97.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ring AM. Patient identification in blood transfusions. JAMA 1972; 219: 1340.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Solomon HM, Hussey WM. A practical approach to the mathematics of apheresis. Plasma Therapeutic Transfusion Technology 1985; 6: 129–30.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart RA, Stewart WB. Computer program for a hospital blood bank. Transfusion 1969; 9: 78–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bellhouse EL, Inskip MJ, Davis JG, Entwistle CC. Pretransfusion non-invasive quality assessment of stored platelet concentrates. BrJ Haematol 1987; 66: 503–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. J. Grindon

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations