Pros and Cons of the Transfusion Service Laboratory being located in an open area of the Core Laboratory
A colleague in South Carolina reports that their core laboratory
is in the process of doing "LEAN" renovations. Plans include moving
the Blood Bank/Transfusion Service Laboratory to the back
of the new Core Laboratory, which will be in an open area with the Core Laboratory.
They presently (and always have been) in a "closed" area in
the Lab, due to noise levels, distractions, etc. They are
a 500-bed facility that services trauma, OB,
NICU, open hearts, and reference workups from smaller surrounding
hospitals. Of special interest is the fact that their blood
bank staff have not been involved as part of the LEAN
process. The inquiring
South Carolinian would appreciate comments or opinions about the Blood
Bank being in an "opened" area.
The following comments have been received.
ADDENDA February 12, 2009
- A colleague in Kansas reports that his blood bank
laboratory was moved into a back corner of their main lab about five years
ago with all the usual dire predictions of distractions, including fear
of overheating and excessive noise due to the proximity to the refrigerator
compressors, etc, etc. To the contrary, in the opinion of the respondent,
the redesign has worked out reasonably well, and has made cross-training on '2nd shift' and on '3rd shift' possible with accompanying FTE
reductions.
Several years ago this same institution moved enough of its Micro staff
into the same main lab to do Gram stains and cultures on 2nd shift and
3rd shift. Now staff can see when someone in another department is drowning
in work and can move over to help as needed, then go back to their initial
assignment when the crisis is over. All ten of the staff on 2nd shift,
and all five of the staff on 3rd shift are in the one large room, permitting better overall coverage.
- A Blood Bank Supervisor in Arkansas reports
that her 300 bed hospital blood bank moved from an enclosed
blood bank to a new hospital and open area lab. After a year of being
in the open and too small a space, they were able to design a new lab
and move into a newly built tower with an enclosed blood bank. They did not have any known major errors while working in the open space, but in
the supervisor's opinion, work was less than efficient; they had to take
extra time to focus on their work, and clerical errors
were evident due
to increased interruptions. They have been in their current enclosed blood
bank lab space for the past five years. In that time they implemented
a new computer system, a blood bank instrument, new refrigerators and
increased workloads. In her opinion, this would not be a safe
situation if they had stayed in the open space.
- A colleague in the Pacific Northwest reports
that she previously worked in a busy 500-bed hospital transfusion
service that redesigned its laboratory so that the transfusion
service was entirely open within the larger main lab. The
blood bank lab had previously been in its own room, but with the redesign
the new blood bank lab was open to the rest of the lab. In the redesign,
it was requested that the blood bank lab be on the perimeter of
the larger lab. As it turned out the blood bank lab had three
walls enclosing it,
with the fourth wall open to the rest of the lab. They designed the blood
bank lab in such a way that they placed a desk barrier for accessioning/specimen
processing and triage between the blood bank and the rest
of the lab. The area was open to the noises generated by chemistry, hematology,
specimen processing and the phlebotomy dispatch area. It took some work
and cooperation, but they were able to make it function. The respondent
cautions, however, that distractions are a definite consideration.
Ira A. Shulman, MD
CBBS e-Network Forum Editor & Moderator
W. Tait Stevens, MD
CBBS e-Network Forum Assistant Editor & Moderator
The e-Network Forum is supported in part by the California Blood Bank Society (CBBS) and the American Red Cross Blood Services (ARCBS) and endorses collegial discussion among blood banking and transfusion medicine professionals. However, neither the CBBS nor the ARCBS in any way endorse the specific views and opinions expressed in the forum. The forum is not intended as a substitute for medical or legal advice and the content should not be relied upon for any medical or legal purposes. Readers should make their own determinations as to: (i) what constitutes appropriate medical, technical, and administrative practices, and (ii) how best to comply with laws and regulations relevant to their questions. For the latter, they should consider consulting, as to any medical matters, a qualified physician, and, as to any legal matters, an attorney familiar with related state and federal laws. The user of the forum, by accessing same, assumes all risks arising out of such use and releases CBBS and their respective members, directors, officers and agents from and against any loss, damage, claim or liability arising out of such use of the Forum.