title: Multi-Center Evaluation of the Automated Immunohematology Instrument, the ORTHO VISION Analyzer.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  ORTHO VISION Analyzer (Vision), is an immunohematology instrument using ID-MT gel card technology with digital image processing. It has a continuous, random sample access with STAT priority processing. The efficiency and ease of operation of Vision was evaluated at 5 medical centers.
  
  
  METHODS
  De-identified patient samples were tested on the ORTHO ProVue Analyzer (ProVue) and repeated on the Vision mimicking the daily workload pattern. Turnaround times (TAT) were collected and compared. Operators rated key features of the analyzer on a scale of 1 to 5.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 507 samples were tested on both instruments at the 5 trial sites. The mean TAT (SD) were 31.6 minutes (5.5) with Vision and 35.7 minutes (8.4) with ProVue, which renders a 12% reduction. Type and screens were performed on 381 samples; the mean TAT (SD) was 32.2 minutes (4.5) with Vision and 37.0 minutes (7.4) with ProVue. Antibody identification with eleven panel cells was performed on 134 samples on Vision; TAT (SD) was 43.2 minutes (8.3). The installation, training, configuration, maintenance and validation processes are all streamlined to provide a short implementation time. The average rating of main functions by the operators was 4.1 to 4.8. Opportunities for improvement, such as flexibility with editing QC results, maintenance schedule, and printing options were identified. The capabilities to perform serial dilutions, to accept pediatric tubes, and review results by e-Connectivity are enhancements over the ProVue.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Vision provides shorter TAT compared to ProVue. Every site described a positive experience using Vision.
authors.affiliation: College of Medicine, University of Florida, Jacksonville agnes.aysola@jax.ufl.edu.
authors.forename: Agnes
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Aysola
authors.affiliation: University of Florida Health at Jacksonville.
authors.forename: Leslie
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Wheeler
authors.affiliation: Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, Houston Tx.
authors.forename: Richard
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Brown
authors.affiliation: Memorial Hermann Healthcare System, Houston Tx.
authors.forename: Rebecca
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Denham
authors.affiliation: Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada.
authors.forename: Connie
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Colavecchia
authors.affiliation: University of Toronto, Canada.
authors.forename: Katerina
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Pavenski
authors.affiliation: St. Michael's Hospital, Toronto, Canada.
authors.forename: Elizabeth
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Krok
authors.affiliation: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
authors.forename: Chelsea
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Hayes
authors.affiliation: Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA.
authors.forename: Ellen
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Klapper
mesh_terms: D057205:Automation, Laboratory / Q000379:methods*; D001788:Blood Grouping and Crossmatching / Q000379:methods*; D006801:Humans; D007091:Image Processing, Computer-Assisted / Q000379:methods*
keywords: VISION; analyzer; automation; blood group typing; blood transfusion; evaluation; immunohematology; transfusion service; turnaround time