Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Procedural errors in antibody identification.

P L Strohm1, P J Smith, J M Fraser

  • 1Ohio State University Hospitals, Columbus, OH, USA.

Immunohematology
|January 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Automatic laser welding and milling with in situ inline coherent imaging.

Optics letters·2014
Same author

An experiment with group methods in the selection of trainees for senior management positions.

Occupational psychology·2010
Same author

Job analysis and the nursing profession.

Nursing mirror and midwives journal·2010
Same author

Job analysis and the nursing profession; selection of nurses.

Nursing mirror and midwives journal·2010
Same author

Loss determination in microsphere resonators by phase-shift cavity ring-down measurements.

Optics express·2008
Same author

Dissection autoradiography: a screening technique using storage phosphor autoradiography to detect the biodistribution of radiolabelled compounds.

Journal of pharmacological and toxicological methods·2002
Same journal

Investigation of a neonate with blocked D phenomenon: resolving D type using serologic and molecular methods.

Immunohematology·2026
Same journal

Novel <i>JK*01</i> allele with c.299C>T p.(Thr100Ile) single nucleotide variant associated with loss of Jk<sup>a</sup> expression in two African American donors.

Immunohematology·2026
Same journal

An update on the GE (Gerbich) blood group system.

Immunohematology·2026
Same journal

Effect of long-term frozen storage on antibodies in blood samples: immunoglobulin, tetanus toxin antibody, and ABO antibody.

Immunohematology·2026
Same journal

To contributors to the 2025 issues.

Immunohematology·2026
Same journal

The Indian (IN 023) blood group system: an update.

Immunohematology·2026
See all related articles

Laboratory errors in antibody identification can occur. A study found procedural errors, particularly in cell selection for ruling out alloantibodies, were more common than misidentification, suggesting areas for system improvement.

Area of Science:

  • Transfusion Medicine
  • Clinical Laboratory Science
  • Immunology

Background:

  • Antibody identification is critical in transfusion medicine to prevent hemolytic transfusion reactions.
  • Previous studies indicated errors occur in antibody identification procedures by both students and technologists.
  • Understanding error types in a routine laboratory setting is essential for improving patient safety.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To prospectively identify and classify errors made during antibody identification procedures in a clinical laboratory setting.
  • To determine the frequency and types of procedural and misidentification errors.
  • To analyze the root causes of identified errors and propose potential solutions.

Main Methods:

  • A prospective study was conducted over one year, reviewing 1,057 antibody identification workups.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Errors were categorized as procedural errors (failure to follow protocol) or misidentification errors (incorrect result).
  • Detailed analysis of error types, focusing on cell selection for alloantibody rule-out, was performed.

    • Main Results:

    • A total of 41 procedural errors (3.88%) were identified; no misidentification errors occurred.
    • The most frequent procedural error (61% of all errors) involved incorrect selection of reagent red blood cells for alloantibody rule-out.
    • Other procedural errors included minor mistakes ('slips') and clerical errors.

    Conclusions:

    • Procedural errors, particularly in reagent cell selection for antibody rule-out, represent a significant source of errors in antibody identification.
    • Implementing computer aids for error detection, ensuring timely workup review, and optimizing panel design can mitigate these errors.
    • Focusing on procedural adherence and systematic checks is crucial for enhancing accuracy in antibody identification.