BACKGROUND: This study compared the estimated costs and times required for ABO/Rh(D) typing and unexpected antibody screening using an automated system and manual methods. METHODS: The total cost included direct and labor costs. Labor costs were calculated on the basis of the average operator salaries and unit values (minutes), which was the hands-on time required to test one sample. To estimate unit values, workflows were recorded on video, and the time required for each process was analyzed separately. RESULTS: The unit values of ABO/Rh(D) typing using the manual method were 5.65 and 8.1 min during regular and unsocial working hours, respectively. The unit value was less than 3.5 min when several samples were tested simultaneously. The unit value for unexpected antibody screening was 2.6 min. The unit values using the automated method for ABO/Rh(D) typing, unexpected antibody screening, and both simultaneously were all 1.5 min. The total cost of ABO/Rh(D) typing of only one sample using the automated analyzer was lower than that of testing only one sample using the manual technique but higher than that of testing several samples simultaneously. The total cost of unexpected antibody screening using an automated analyzer was less than that using the manual method. CONCLUSIONS: ABO/Rh(D) typing using an automated analyzer incurs a lower unit value and cost than that using the manual technique when only one sample is tested at a time. Unexpected antibody screening using an automated analyzer always incurs a lower unit value and cost than that using the manual technique.
ABO Blood-Group System/blood ; Antibodies/analysis ; Automation ; Blood Banks/*economics/*standards ; Blood Grouping and Crossmatching/*economics/instrumentation ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Humans ; Rh-Hr Blood-Group System/blood ; *Workflow ; Workload