Re: Automation of Special Stains - QC
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>
From: | amos brooks <atbrooks@snet.net> |
To: | "Tapper, Sheila" <STapper@smdc.org> |
Reply-To: | |
Content-Type: | text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
Hi,
If a microorganism is going to contaminate a section on the same slide as
the control then obviously the microorganism could contaminate a section on a
slide in the same coplin jar. If this is true then you are left running the
control separate and what is the point of doing that. I wouldn't worry about
that any more than the other slides in the same jar.
Amos Brooks
"Tapper, Sheila" wrote:
> Have you ever had trouble with microorganisms traveling from your positive
> control to the patient tissue? My pathologist refuses to allow
> microorganism controls to be placed on the same slide, for fear that
> something may contaminate the patient tissue.
>
> Sheila
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom T. McNemar [SMTP:TMcNemar@lmhealth.org]
> Sent: Monday, March 20, 2000 10:26 AM
> To: Colbert, Laurie; 'histonet@pathology.swmed.edu'
> Subject: RE: Automation of Special Stains - QC
>
> With regard to the question of positive/negative controls..... In
> our lab
> we mount the positive control on the same slide as the patient.
> This way
> you always know that the control and patient were stained exactly
> the same.
> Granted, we go through a huge number of control blocks but so far
> they have
> been pretty easy to come by. We buy special slides that have a red
> box for
> the control tissue. It has worked well for us.
> Tom Mc Nemar
> Pathology Supervisor
> Licking Memorial Hospital
> Newark, Ohio
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Colbert, Laurie [SMTP:LColbert@phsca.org]
> > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2000 2:37 PM
> > To: 'histonet@pathology.swmed.edu'
> > Subject: RE: Automation of Special Stains
> >
> > In the past we used the Leica Autostainer to do some special
> stains. This
> > worked well, but large amounts of reagent were needed to fill the
> slide
> > buckets on the stainer and the number of stains that could be
> performed at
> > one time was limited.
> >
> > We now have two Cytologix stainers in our lab. One was purchased
> and one
> > is
> > on loan until Cytologix can improve on the turn-around time. The
> stains
> > are
> > really nice on this stainer, but there are a few problems with
> > consistency.
> > The stainer can accommodate 48 slides at one time, but, as I
> mentioned
> > earlier, the turn-around time is not good when you have multiple
> stains or
> > multiple slides (more that 3 or 4) slides of one stain. What is
> really
> > nice
> > is that we can run stains overnight and they are ready to hand out
> first
> > thing in the morning. So this aspect has improved our turn-around
> time.
> >
> > Cytologix is aware of the problems with their stainer, and they
> are very
> > receptive to any issue or problem we have had. I think this is
> going to
> > be
> > a really great stainer down the line when some of the bugs have
> been
> > worked
> > out. For now, we will continue work around the problems, and the
> stainer
> > really has saved us several times when we were short on people.
> And I
> > have
> > to emphasize that their customer service has been good.
> >
> > I may be opening a can of worms here, but I have a question in
> regards to
> > automation of stains. I feel there is no real quality control on
> the
> > stainers that stain one slide at a time (vs. batch staining as on
> the
> > Leica
> > Autostainer). Sure, your control may be positive, but how do you
> know the
> > patient slide was stained properly when it is stained independent
> of the
> > control slide? We have had our control slide come out negative,
> but our
> > patient was positive, so who's to say that this couldn't happen
> the other
> > way around???
> >
> > Laurie Colbert
> > Saint Joseph Medical Center
> > Burbank, CA
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>