I tried to categorize this submission file to break it down. Hoping clarity will set in with smaller subsets. Here’s the categories of testing I came up with, and a few examples of each.
Inventory – how many units are set up on a patient CRYOPRECIPITATE UNITS:NUM:PT:BPU:QN:
Procedure – portions of the workup ANTIBODY SCREEN.CELL I:ACNC:PT:SER/PLAS:ORD:
ANTIBODY SCREEN.CELL III:ACNC:PT:SER/PLAS:ORD:
ANTIBODY SCREEN.COLD ABSORPTION:ACNC:PT:SER/PLAS:ORD:
Product – status or items about a unique specific BPU (blood product unit) BLOOD PRODUCT STATUS.CMV NEGATIVE APHERESIS:IMP:PT:XXX:NOM:
AUTOLOGOUS PRBC UNIT 1 :IMP:PT:BPU:NOM:::BLDBK
Have been using the IMP property and NOM scale where answers=Compatible, Incompatible or Available, Dispensed, Expired
Recordkeeping – behind the scenes administrative or internal quality workup CHECK CELLS:ACNC:PT:BLD:ORD:
some systems won’t release units until the “i’s are dotted CHECK CELLS.A:ACNC:PT:SER:ORD:
and t’s are crossed” CHECK CELLS.B:ACNC:PT:SER:ORD:
Transfusion – usually in TMSTP property PACKED RBC UNIT 1 DATE GIVEN:TMSTP:PT:BPU:QN:
WASHED RBC UNIT 1 DATE GIVEN:TMSTP:PT:BPU:QN:
WHOLE BLOOD UNIT 1 DATE GIVEN:TMSTP:PT:BPU:QN:
Transfusion Status BLOOD PRODUCT DISPOSITION.UNIT 1:PRID:PT:BPU:NOM:
BLOOD PRODUCT DISPOSITION.FINAL:PRID:PT:BPU:NOM:
Similar answer types to Product above; the PRID and IMP property could probably be resolved to one or the other?
CrossMatch – different stages of the xm or workup
MAJOR CROSSMATCH.IMMEDIATE SPIN:IMP:PT:SER/PLAS:NOM:
REVERSE ABO GROUP:TYPE:PT:BLD:NOM:
Previous conversations with Judy Owyoung at ARUP Blood Bank and Don Snyder at Mayo revealed that the BB dept charts a lot more of the workups than other departments. Whether or not this is pertinent in going out in an information exchange, where the units set up for a patient don’t physically accompany them to the next provider hasn’t been determined. not that I know of. Opinions? Does any of this cause heartburn with anyone?