On this page
Asset Type
Manufacturer
Model
What This Guide Helps With
Troubleshooting excessive review flags, questionable particle recognition, or abnormal urine microscopy classification before assuming internal analyzer failure.
Step-by-Step Troubleshooting
Ensure Patient Safety First
Confirm the DxU 840 Iris is not actively processing patient specimens before troubleshooting image review, sample handling, racks, or workstation settings.
If testing must continue, have laboratory staff use another validated analyzer or approved manual microscopy workflow.
Expected outcome: No questionable urine microscopy results are released while the recognition issue is unresolved.
Stop Reporting Questionable Results
Ask laboratory staff whether results with abnormal review flags, unexpected classifications, or poor particle recognition were already generated.
Confirm whether affected specimens require manual review, repeat testing, or manual microscopy per laboratory policy.
Expected outcome: Patient results that may be misclassified are held or verified before release.
Confirm the Exact Recognition Problem
Ask staff what they are seeing. Check whether the issue involves:
- Excessive review flags
- RBC, WBC, epithelial cell, bacteria, yeast, crystal, cast, mucus, or sperm misclassification
- Images not matching reported categories
- Increased manual review workload
- Sudden change after reagent, maintenance, QC, or software workflow changes
- One specimen type repeatedly flagging more than others
Expected outcome: The issue is narrowed to classification behavior, image quality, specimen quality, operator review workflow, or system performance.
Check for Active Alarms, Errors, or Maintenance Messages
Review the analyzer and workstation for messages related to imaging, flow, sample aspiration, focus, dirty flow cell, QC, database, or communication issues.
Expected outcome: Any related system condition is identified before treating the problem as a particle recognition issue alone.
Verify QC and Control Status
Confirm that required QC has passed and that there are no active QC lockouts, failed controls, expired materials, or recent unresolved QC trends.
A recognition problem with failed QC should not be treated as a normal review workflow issue.
Expected outcome: The analyzer is verified as acceptable for testing, or testing remains stopped until QC is resolved.
Confirm the Problem Is Not Specimen-Related
Ask whether affected urine samples were highly turbid, bloody, viscous, contaminated, insufficiently mixed, or delayed before testing.
Ensure specimens were handled according to laboratory policy.
Expected outcome: Poor particle recognition caused by specimen condition is identified before suspecting analyzer failure.
Review Sample Mixing and Rack Handling
Confirm staff are mixing specimens properly before loading and that racks are not causing sample position, aspiration, or handling problems.
Poorly mixed urine can cause inconsistent particle distribution and unexpected review flags.
Expected outcome: Sample preparation and rack handling are ruled out as causes.
Inspect the Sample Area for External Obstruction or Contamination
With the analyzer safe and idle, visually check the accessible sample loading area, racks, specimen tubes, and surrounding surfaces for spills, debris, misloaded tubes, or rack interference.
Expected outcome: No external contamination or loading issue is affecting sample processing.
Check for Aspiration or Flow-Related Symptoms
Ask staff whether they have also seen low sample volume messages, aspiration errors, bubbles, clogs, carryover concerns, or flow cell warnings.
Particle recognition issues can appear when sample flow or imaging conditions are unstable.
Expected outcome: Flow or aspiration concerns are identified and handled as the primary issue if present.
Review Image Quality With Laboratory Staff
Have qualified lab personnel review representative flagged images. Look for blurry images, debris, streaking, poor contrast, bubbles, uneven background, or particles that are difficult to classify.
Expected outcome: The issue is separated into poor image quality versus valid images requiring manual classification.
Confirm Cleaning and Maintenance Status
Check whether routine user-level cleaning or maintenance was missed, recently performed, or interrupted.
Do not perform deep internal cleaning or disassembly unless authorized by service documentation and facility policy.
Expected outcome: Missed or incomplete maintenance is identified as a possible contributor.
Compare With Recent Baseline Performance
Ask whether review flags increased suddenly or gradually. Compare with recent QC, maintenance logs, specimen volume, reagent changes, and staff observations.
Expected outcome: The issue is identified as a sudden fault, workflow change, specimen population change, or gradual performance decline.
Check Workstation Review Settings and User Workflow
Confirm that review rules, flagging thresholds, operator permissions, and result review workflow were not recently changed.
Avoid changing validated laboratory settings without laboratory leadership approval.
Expected outcome: The issue is not caused by altered review configuration or workflow expectations.
Restart Only When Safe and Appropriate
If the analyzer and workstation are idle, no specimens are in process, and laboratory leadership agrees, perform a controlled restart according to local procedure.
Verify the system returns without errors.
Expected outcome: Temporary workstation or software behavior is cleared, or the issue remains reproducible.
Run an Approved Check Sample or QC Process
Have laboratory staff run the appropriate QC or approved verification material after troubleshooting. Clinical Engineering should not substitute unapproved samples for lab validation.
Expected outcome: Particle recognition and review behavior is verified as acceptable by the lab before returning to routine use.
Return to Service Only If Results Are Acceptable
If QC passes, images are clear, review flags return to expected behavior, and laboratory staff confirm acceptable performance, document the findings and return the analyzer to service.
If this resolves the issue, stop troubleshooting.
If the Problem Persists
If excessive review flags, particle misclassification, poor recognition, or questionable images continue after external checks, specimen handling, QC, cleaning status, workflow settings, and restart have been ruled out, the issue may involve internal imaging, flow cell, optics, software, calibration, or database-related failure.
The DxU 840 Iris should be:
- Removed from service
- Labeled Out of Service
- Sent for repair, vendor service, or bench evaluation
Knowing when to stop is proper troubleshooting. Continued use with questionable particle recognition can affect patient result reliability.
Clinical Use Tip
Do not troubleshoot particle recognition problems while the analyzer is actively processing patient specimens. Protect result integrity first, move testing to another validated method if needed, and have the laboratory determine whether affected specimens require repeat or manual review.
Work Order Documentation (CCR Method)
CCR = Complaint, Cause, Resolution
Complaint
What was reported by the clinical staff.
Example:
"Laboratory reported excessive review flags and questionable particle recognition on the Beckman Coulter DxU 840 Iris during urine microscopy review."
Cause
What was observed during troubleshooting.
Example:
"Checked QC status, specimen handling, rack loading, accessible sample area, image quality, maintenance status, and workstation workflow; no external obstruction or user-accessible cause was confirmed."
Resolution
What action was taken.
Example:
"Removed analyzer from service, labeled Out of Service, and escalated for vendor evaluation due to persistent particle recognition concerns."
Helpful Details to Include (If Known)
- Whether QC passed or failed
- Specific particles being misclassified
- Review flag type or frequency
- Whether issue was sudden or gradual
- Specimen appearance or handling concerns
- Image quality observations
- Any aspiration, flow, or dirty flow cell messages
- Cleaning or maintenance status
- Workstation restart performed
- Whether settings or review rules changed
- Final device status
Final Thought
Particle recognition issues should be handled carefully because they can affect urine microscopy interpretation and result confidence. Clinical Engineering should rule out specimen, workflow, QC, cleaning, rack, and obvious flow-related causes first, then escalate when the analyzer cannot be confidently verified. Clear CCR documentation helps protect patients, staff, and the service history.
That is successful troubleshooting.