• Sitemap
  • Contact us

pISSN 2384-2458 eISSN 2288-7261
Article View

Original Article

J Lab Med Qual Assur 2020; 42(1): 40-47

Published online March 31, 2020

https://doi.org/10.15263/jlmqa.2020.42.1.40

Copyright © Korean Association of External Quality Assessment Service.

Survey on Transfusion Laboratory Work in Medical Institutions Participating in the External Quality Control Program for Blood Bank

Jong-Han Lee1, Sungwook Song2, Sook Won Ryu3, and Hyun Ok Kim4

1Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University Wonju College of Medicine, Wonju; 2Department of Laboratory Medicine, Osan Hankook Hospital, Osan; 3Department of Laboratory Medicine, Kangwon National University School of Medicine, Chuncheon; 4Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

Correspondence to:Hyun Ok Kim
Department of Laboratory Medicine, Yonsei University College of Medicine, 50-1 Yonsei-ro, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul 03722, Korea
Tel +82-2-2228-2444 Fax +82-2-364-1583 E-mail hyunok1019@yuhs.ac

Received: November 22, 2019; Revised: January 9, 2020; Accepted: January 14, 2020

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background: Laboratory tests in blood banks vary with respect to methods, equipment, and quality control according to the hospital’s environment.
Methods: We surveyed institutions that regularly participated in the Korean association of external quality assessment using a web-based questionnaire comprising 79 questions regarding transfusion laboratory work.
Results: A total of 84 institutions were surveyed including 17 senior general hospitals, 43 general hospitals, 19 hospitals, four clinics, and one commercial laboratory. ABO cell typing was performed by slide (63, 75.0%), tube (42, 50.0%), automated column (19, 22.6%), and automated microplate (7, 8.3%) methods. ABO serum typing was performed by tube (75, 89.3%), automated column (19, 22.6%), automated microplate (7, 8.3%), and slide (7, 8.3%) methods. Irregular antibody screening test and identification test was performed by 58 (69.0%) and 36 (42.9%) institutions, respectively. Irregular antibody screening test and identification test was performed by the column agglutination method in 34 (40.5%) and 26 (31.0%) institutions, respectively. Room temperature saline, albumin, and anti-globulin reagent crossmatching test (three-step method) was the most popular method (48, 57.1%). The use of anti-globulin reagent in the crossmatching test did not significantly vary according to the size of the hospital. A daily quality control program for ABO, Rh typing, and the crossmatching test was conducted in 58 (69.0%) institutions.
Conclusions: There were differences in transfusion-related laboratory tests among the institutions. Although this survey included a limited number of institutions, it can be helpful to evaluate the routine laboratory tests and transfusion-related blood bank work in each institution.

Keywords: Blood transfusion, Blood banks, Laboratory tests, Survey, Quality assessment

Supplementary File


Share this article on :

Stats or metrics