Technical Director Carter BloodCare Bedford, Texas, United States
Background/Case Studies: Manual whole blood processing can lead to inconsistent outcomes based on varying levels of technician expertise along with the likelihood of possible errors introduced throughout the multi-step manufacturing process. As whole blood (WB) collections continue to increase year over year to meet hospital demand for red cells, plasma, and platelets, an evaluation of an automated blood processing system (APS) was completed. The rationale to implement an APS included consistency in components produced, increased plasma volumes, additional production of whole blood derived platelets, and faster throughput with improved efficiency to re-direct staff to other duties. A comparison of throughput times between manual vs. APS processing was performed and correlated to potential savings in workforce needs.
Study
Design/Methods: A focused comparison between manual and APS was conducted. Observed times of competent, experienced technicians from both methodologies were averaged, rounded to the nearest five seconds, and calculated per unit processed. The mean time for each processing step was determined beginning with any required bag preparation, initial loading of the centrifuge(s), spin time to complete the first separation, unloading of the centrifuge(s) if applicable, manual expression into plasma and red blood cell components when required, and ending after second separation steps further separating plasma components into whole blood derived (WBD) platelets and remaining plasma.
The APS has a capacity to process four units per device. The manual processing system has a capacity of six units per device. However, monitoring revealed that an average of two of the six units in manual processing would not result in the production of a WBD platelet. This was most often associated with an elevated hematocrit and subsequently a plasma RBC interface which was not well defined. Both systems were compared as if each had a capacity of four units per device after second separation.
Results/Findings: Mean times for each step of the manual and APS methods were determined (Table 1). The total mean processing time for the manual and APS methods were 475 and 435 seconds, respectively, resulting in a time saving of 40 seconds (8.4%) utilizing the APS method. The total number of WB units collected and processed at the community blood center site with APS capabilities in 2024 was 191,227. Utilization of APS in place of manual processing would result in time savings of 1.02 full time equivalents (FTE).
Conclusions: The time savings of one FTE exhibited in this focused review confirmed a positive gain in efficiency using APS. Further analysis is needed to evaluate expected gains in efficiency associated with computer interfacing and platelet yield indexing.
