|
The patient had a previous iron result of 54 ug/dl in (b)(6) 2021.The patient was admitted to the clinic on (b)(6) 2023.The affected patient sample also had a repeat value of 221 ug/dl on (b)(6) 2023.In b5, the following statement, "a second sample was collected from the patient on (b)(6) 2023 and the iron result was 85 ug/dl." is corrected to "a second sample was collected from the patient on (b)(6) 2023 and the iron result was 84.8 ug/dl.The affected patient sample resulted in the following relevant test data: total bilirubin = 0.932 mg/dl direct bilirubin = 0.302 mg/dl ast = 19.7 u/l alt = 15.8 u/l wbc = 2.74 10^3/ul rbc = 3.92 10^6/ul hgb = 12.7 g/dl hct = 37.6 % mcv = 95.9 fl mch = 32.4 pg mchc = 33.8 g/dl rdw-cv = 15.7 % plt = 197 10^3/ul mpv = 9.2 fl neut = 1.30 10^3/ul (47.4 %) lymph = 0.83 10^3/ul (30.3 %) mono = 0.52 10^3/ul (19.0 %) eo = 0.06 10^3/ul (2.2 %) baso = 0.02 10^3/ul (0.7 %) ig = 0.01 10^3/ul (0.4 %) nrbc = 0.00 10^3/ul (0.0 %).The field service engineer adjusted reagent probes, checked the water pressure, and checked the rinse mechanism.The sample, reagent, and water lines were checked.Calibration and controls were within specifications.Calibration data was acceptable.A product issue could be ruled out.Upon review of the alarm trace, no relevant alarms were observed.The investigation did not identify a product issue.A pre-analytic sample handling issue could not be ruled out.There is no evidence suggesting that both iron test results are incorrect.
|