Korean J Blood Transfus.  2014 Aug;25(2):93-98. 10.0000/kjbt.2014.25.2.93.

Comparison of Effectiveness between Blood Bank Automation System and Manual Method for ABO-RhD Blood Typing and Antibody Screening Test in a Single Center

• Song YK
• An TK
• Hwang JY
• Shim HE
• Lee DH
• Kong SY

• KMID: 2029264
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.0000/kjbt.2014.25.2.93

Abstract

BACKGROUND
The automation system for blood typing and antibody screening has been developed and is now used widely. In this study, we evaluated the economic effectiveness between automation system QWALYS-3 (DIAGAST, Loos Cedex, France) and manual testing.
METHODS
Clinical samples from March 2012 were used for comparison of the costs and TAT for ABO-RhD blood typing and antibody screening. The costs included those of materials (reagents and consumables), labor, and equipment depreciation. TAT was analyzed for either blood typing only for one, 16, and 32 samples or blood typing and antibody screening for the same number of samples.
RESULTS
The blood typing TAT for one, 16, and 32 samples was 4.5, 35.1, and 70.1 minutes by manual and 24.0, 36.0, and 38.1 minutes by automated system. Both blood typing and antibody screening TAT for one, 16, and 32 samples was 27.5, 75.0, and 129.9 minutes by manual and 45.0, 52.0, and 54.0 minutes by automation.
CONCLUSION
The blood automation system reduced TAT only for the batch test, therefore, when using the automation system, blood bank test size and emergency situation should be considered.

Keyword

Blood bank automation system; Turnaround time; Blood typing and antibody screening test

MeSH Terms

Automation*
Blood Banks*
Blood Grouping and Crossmatching*
Depreciation
Emergencies
Mass Screening*