PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Joan Russell

Publications and source records attributed to Joan Russell.

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Reducing adverse events in blood transfusion.

Against a background of ever increasing expenditure on blood safety, less attention has been paid to improving the safety of the transfusion chain within hospitals. Based on reports to the Serious Hazards of Transfusion (SHOT scheme) between 1996 and 2003, the risk of an error occurring during transfusion of a blood component is estimated at 1:16 500, an ABO incompatible transfusion at 1:100 000 and the risk of death as a result of an 'incorrect blood component transfused' (IBCT) is around 1:1 500 000. There are opportunities for error at a number of critical points in the transfusion chain, starting with the decision to transfuse, prescription and request, patient sampling, pretransfusion testing and finally the collection of the component from the blood refrigerator and administration to the patient, consistently the commonest error in successive SHOT reports. Successive 'Better Blood Transfusion' initiatives and the 2003 Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer for England have drawn welcome attention to the importance of safe and appropriate transfusion and the National Patient Safety Agency has now set a target of reducing the number of ABO incompatible transfusions by 50% over 3-5 years.

Blood Group Incompatibility↗

Implementation and evaluation of a new automated interactive image analysis system.

OBJECTIVE: To compare automated interactive screening using the ThinPrep Imaging System with independent manual primary screening of 12,000 routine ThinPrep slides. STUDY DESIGN: With the first 6,000 cases, the Review Scopes (RS) screening results from the 22 fields of view (FOV) only were compared to independent manual primary screening. In the next 6,000 cases, any abnormality detected in the 22 FOV resulted in full manual screening on the cytotechnologist's own microscope. Sensitivity and specificity together with their 95% CIs were calculatedfor each method. RESULTS: In the first set of 6, 000 cases, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of the imager were 85.19% and 96.67%, respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of manual primary screening were 89.38% and 98.42%. This highersensitivity and specificity of manual primary screening were found to be statistically significant. The second set of 6,000 cases demonstrated no significant statistical difference in sensitivity or specificity between the sets of data. CONCLUSION: The results from our study show that the sensitivity and specificity of the imager technology are equivalent to those of manual primary screening. The system is ideally suited to the rapid screening of negative cases, allowing increased laboratory productivity and greater throughput of cases on a daily basis.

Carcinoma↗