On this page
Asset Type
Manufacturer
Model
What This Guide Helps With
Troubleshooting excessive review flags, particle recognition concerns, image review issues, or questionable urine microscopy classification.
Step-by-Step Troubleshooting
Ensure Patient Safety First
Confirm the DxU 850 Iris is not actively processing patient specimens before troubleshooting image review, particle recognition, or classification concerns.
If urine microscopy testing must continue, have laboratory staff use another validated analyzer or follow the approved manual review process.
Expected outcome: Questionable urine microscopy results are not released without proper review.
Stop Reporting Questionable Results
Ask laboratory staff whether patient results were affected by excessive review flags or unusual particle classification.
Confirm whether results were held, manually reviewed, repeated, or verified according to laboratory policy.
Expected outcome: Potentially misclassified results are controlled before release.
Confirm the Exact Recognition Issue
Ask staff what they are seeing.
Check whether the issue involves:
- Excessive review flags
- Increased manual review workload
- RBC, WBC, epithelial cell, cast, crystal, yeast, bacteria, mucus, or artifact misclassification
- Unusual particle counts
- Poor correlation with manual microscopy
- Repeated abnormal flags on normal specimens
- Abnormal images shown during review
- Issue limited to one specimen type, one rack, or all samples
Expected outcome: The issue is defined as recognition, image quality, sample quality, operator review, or system-wide performance.
Verify Sample and Specimen Quality
Confirm the specimens are properly mixed, not excessively old, not visibly contaminated, and not outside laboratory acceptance criteria.
Urine sediment can settle quickly, and poor mixing may cause inconsistent particle concentration.
Expected outcome: Recognition concerns are not caused by specimen handling or settling.
Check for Pattern by Sample Type
Ask whether the review flags occur mainly with turbid urine, gross hematuria, heavy mucus, crystals, debris, or highly concentrated specimens.
Some urine specimens naturally generate more review flags because particles overlap, clump, or obscure image fields.
Expected outcome: Staff can distinguish true analyzer concern from specimen-driven review workload.
Review Recent Reagent, Diluent, Cleaner, and Consumable Changes
Confirm whether any fluids, consumables, controls, or sample containers were recently changed.
Check for expired material, incorrect material, wrong lot in use, or improper storage.
Expected outcome: Consumable-related causes are ruled out before assuming analyzer failure.
Inspect the Sample Area for External Contamination
With the analyzer idle and safe to access, visually inspect user-accessible sample areas for spilled urine, debris, dried residue, or rack contamination.
Do not perform internal disassembly.
Expected outcome: External contamination that could affect sampling or image quality is identified and corrected if accessible.
Check Rack and Tube Presentation
Verify that racks are loaded correctly, tubes are seated properly, and sample volume appears adequate.
Poor tube position or insufficient sample volume can affect aspiration and downstream image quality.
Expected outcome: Specimens are presented consistently to the analyzer.
Check for Related Aspiration or Flow Errors
Review recent analyzer messages or staff reports for aspiration errors, low flow, clogging, carryover concerns, or flow cell warnings.
Particle recognition problems may be secondary to poor sample flow or debris in the sample path.
Expected outcome: A possible fluidic or aspiration issue is identified if present.
Review Image Quality During Manual Review
Ask the operator to show examples of flagged images, if available.
Look for:
- Blurry images
- Dark or low-contrast images
- Streaks
- Bubbles
- Debris
- Excess background material
- Inconsistent focus
- Unusual image artifacts
Expected outcome: The issue is narrowed to particle recognition logic, poor image quality, or sample debris.
Confirm QC and Background Checks Are Acceptable
Ask laboratory staff whether current QC, background, or daily checks passed according to their procedure.
Do not override QC failure or advise patient testing if quality checks are unresolved.
Expected outcome: The analyzer is not used for patient reporting unless quality checks support use.
Check for Recent Software, Database, or Review Rule Changes
Ask whether review rules, auto-verification settings, operator review criteria, middleware rules, or software settings were recently changed.
Increased review flags may be caused by workflow or rule changes rather than analyzer hardware failure.
Expected outcome: External configuration or LIS/middleware-related causes are considered.
Compare to Manual Microscopy or Alternate Method
Have laboratory staff compare affected specimens using the approved manual microscopy or alternate validated process.
Clinical Engineering should not interpret patient results, but should document whether staff confirmed a correlation problem.
Expected outcome: Staff determine whether the issue affects clinical result accuracy.
Restart Only When Safe
If the analyzer and workstation are idle, perform a controlled restart according to site procedure.
Do not restart while specimens are processing or results are pending transmission.
Expected outcome: Temporary software or processing issues clear without affecting patient results.
Run an Approved Check or Control After Troubleshooting
Have laboratory staff perform the appropriate QC, control, background, or verification process before returning the analyzer to normal patient use.
Expected outcome: Analyzer performance is verified according to laboratory policy before release.
Stop if Recognition Remains Questionable
If particle recognition remains abnormal, review flags are excessive without explanation, images appear poor, or results do not correlate with manual review, stop troubleshooting.
Expected outcome: The issue is escalated before inaccurate microscopy results are released.
If the Problem Persists
If sample handling, consumables, racks, tube presentation, QC status, review rules, and obvious external causes have been ruled out, the issue may involve internal optics, flow cell condition, image processing, software/database performance, or classification system failure.
The device should be:
- Removed from service
- Labeled Out of Service
- Sent for repair, vendor support, or bench evaluation
Knowing when to stop is proper troubleshooting. A particle recognition issue can affect result reliability, so continued use should depend on laboratory verification and facility policy.
Clinical Use Tip
Do not troubleshoot particle recognition problems while patient specimens are actively running. If results look questionable, have the lab move testing to another validated method and hold affected results for 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 classification on the Beckman Coulter DxU 850 Iris urine analyzer."
Cause
What was observed during troubleshooting.
Example:
"Verified analyzer was producing repeated review flags; sample presentation, rack loading, consumables, and visible external contamination checks did not identify an external cause."
Resolution
What action was taken.
Example:
"Removed analyzer from service, labeled Out of Service, advised lab to use approved alternate testing process, and escalated unit for vendor/bench evaluation."
Helpful Details to Include (If Known)
- Whether QC or background checks passed
- Specific review flags observed
- Particle types being misclassified
- Whether issue affected all samples or only certain specimen types
- Example specimen conditions such as turbid, bloody, crystal-heavy, or mucus-heavy urine
- Whether images appeared blurry, dark, streaked, or artifact-heavy
- Rack and tube condition
- Sample volume and mixing status
- Any recent consumable, software, LIS, or review rule changes
- Whether manual microscopy correlation was acceptable
- Final device status
Final Thought
Particle recognition troubleshooting should protect patient results first, then work through sample quality, consumables, rack loading, QC status, image quality, and workflow settings. If external causes are ruled out and recognition remains questionable, escalation is the safest and most appropriate action. Clear CCR documentation helps show what was checked and why the device was or was not returned to service.
That is successful troubleshooting.