Stephen Church

Preanalytical quality improvement: from dream to reality

Abstract Laboratory diagnostics (i.e., the total testing process) develops conventionally through a virtual loop, originally referred to as “the brain to brain cycle” by George Lundberg. Throughout this complex cycle, there is an inherent possibility that a mistake might occur. According to reliable data, preanalytical errors still account for nearly 60%–70% of all problems occurring in laboratory diagnostics, most of them attributable to mishandling procedures during collection, handling, preparing or storing the specimens. Although most of these would be “intercepted” before inappropriate reactions are taken, in nearly one fifth of the cases they can produce inappropriate investigations and unjustifiable increase in costs, while generating inappropriate clinical decisions and causing some unfortunate circumstances. Several steps have already been undertaken to increase awareness and establish a governance of this frequently overlooked aspect of the total testing process. Standardization and monitoring preanalytical variables is of foremost importance and is associated with the most efficient and well-organized laboratories, resulting in reduced operational costs and increased revenues. As such, this article is aimed at providing readers with significant updates on the total quality management of the preanalytical phase to endeavour further improvement for patient safety throughout this phase of the total testing process.

Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust

Abstract Total quality in laboratory medicine should be defined as the guarantee that each activity throughout the total testing process is correctly performed, providing valuable medical decision-making and effective patient care. In the past decades, a 10-fold reduction in the analytical error rate has been achieved thanks to improvements in both reliability and standardization of analytical techniques, reagents, and instrumentation. Notable advances in information technology, quality control and quality assurance methods have also assured a valuable contribution for reducing diagnostic errors. Nevertheless, several lines of evidence still suggest that most errors in laboratory diagnostics fall outside the analytical phase, and the pre- and postanalytical steps have been found to be much more vulnerable. This collective paper, which is the logical continuum of the former already published in this journal 2 years ago, provides additional contribution to risk management in the preanalytical phase and is a synopsis of the lectures of the 2nd European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)-Becton Dickinson (BD) European Conference on Preanalytical Phase meeting entitled “Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust” (Zagreb, Croatia, 1–2 March 2013). The leading topics that will be discussed include quality indicators for preanalytical phase, phlebotomy practices for collection of blood gas analysis and pediatric samples, lipemia and blood collection tube interferences, preanalytical requirements of urinalysis, molecular biology hemostasis and platelet testing, as well as indications on best practices for safe blood collection. Auditing of the preanalytical phase by ISO assessors and external quality assessment for preanalytical phase are also discussed.

Preanalytical quality improvement. in pursuit of harmony, on behalf of European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)

Abstract Laboratory diagnostics develop through different phases that span from test ordering (pre-preanalytical phase), collection of diagnostic specimens (preanalytical phase), sample analysis (analytical phase), results reporting (postanalytical phase) and interpretation (post-postanalytical phase). Although laboratory medicine seems less vulnerable than other clinical and diagnostic areas, the chance of errors is not negligible and may adversely impact on quality of testing and patient safety. This article, which continues a biennial tradition of collective papers on preanalytical quality improvement, is aimed to provide further contributions for pursuing quality and harmony in the preanalytical phase, and is a synopsis of lectures of the third European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)-Becton Dickinson (BD) European Conference on Preanalytical Phase meeting entitled ‘Preanalytical quality improvement. In pursuit of harmony’ (Porto, 20–21 March 2015). The leading topics that will be discussed include unnecessary laboratory testing, management of test request, implementation of the European Union (EU) Directive on needlestick injury prevention, harmonization of fasting requirements for blood sampling, influence of physical activity and medical contrast media on in vitro diagnostic testing, recent evidence about the possible lack of necessity of the order of draw, the best practice for monitoring conditions of time and temperature during sample transportation, along with description of problems emerging from inappropriate sample centrifugation. In the final part, the article includes recent updates about preanalytical quality indicators, the feasibility of an External Quality Assessment Scheme (EQAS) for the preanalytical phase, the results of the 2nd EFLM WG-PRE survey, as well as specific notions about the evidence-based quality management of the preanalytical phase.

Survey of national guidelines, education and training on phlebotomy in 28 European countries: an original report by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PA)

Abstract Background: European questionnaire survey was conducted by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (EFLM WG-PA) to assess how phlebotomy is performed in EFLM countries, including differences in personnel, level of education and skills, and to investigate the presence and compliance of national phlebotomy guidelines on this matter. Methods: A questionnaire was constructed containing questions elucidating different aspects of the organization behind the phlebotomy praxis on a national basis, including questions on the staff performing phlebotomy, the education of these staff members, and the existence of and adherence to national guidelines. All 39 EFLM member countries were invited to participate. Results: In total 28/39 (72%) EFLM member countries responded. Seven out of the 28 (25%) have national phlebotomy guidelines and five have implemented other guidelines. The estimated compliance with phlebotomy guidance for the laboratories in the countries that have national guidelines available is poor, regardless to whether the phlebotomy was under the laboratory control or not. Most countries were interested in EFLM guidelines and to participate in a pilot EFLM preanalytical phase external quality assessment (EQA) scheme. In the responding EFLM member countries, the majority of phlebotomy is performed by nurses and laboratory technicians. Their basic education is generally 4–5 years of high school, followed by 2–5 years of colleague or university studies. Only a third (10/28; 36%) of the participating member countries has any specific training available as a continuous educational resource. A specific training for phlebotomy is not part of the education required to become qualified in 6/28 (21%) and 9/28 (32%) of countries for nurses and laboratory technicians, respectively. In countries and professions where training is required, most require more than 5 h of training. Conclusions: Based on the results of this survey we conclude the following: 1) There is a need to assess the quality of current practices, compliance to the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines and to identify some most critical steps which occur during phlebotomy, in different healthcare settings, across Europe; 2) Existing CLSI H3-A6 phlebotomy guidelines should be adapted and used locally in all European countries which do not have their own guidelines; 3) National EFLM societies need to be engaged in basic training program development and continuous education of healthcare phlebotomy staff (implementing the certification of competence).

Compliance of blood sampling procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines: An observational study by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group for the preanalytical phase (WG-PRE)

Abstract Background: An observational study was conducted in 12 European countries by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (EFLM WG-PRE) to assess the level of compliance with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines. Methods: A structured checklist including 29 items was created to assess the compliance of European phlebotomy procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guideline. A risk occurrence chart of individual phlebotomy steps was created from the observed error frequency and severity of harm of each guideline key issue. The severity of errors occurring during phlebotomy was graded using the risk occurrence chart. Results: Twelve European countries participated with a median of 33 (18–36) audits per country, and a total of 336 audits. The median error rate for the total phlebotomy procedure was 26.9 % (10.6–43.8), indicating a low overall compliance with the recommended CLSI guideline. Patient identification and test tube labelling were identified as the key guideline issues with the highest combination of probability and potential risk of harm. Administrative staff did not adhere to patient identification procedures during phlebotomy, whereas physicians did not adhere to test tube labelling policy. Conclusions: The level of compliance of phlebotomy procedures with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines in 12 European countries was found to be unacceptably low. The most critical steps in need of immediate attention in the investigated countries are patient identification and tube labelling.

The role of European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for Preanalytical Phase in standardization and harmonization of the preanalytical phase in Europe

Patient safety is a leading challenge in healthcare and from the laboratory perspective it is now well established that preanalytical errors are the major contributor to the overall rate of diagnostic and therapeutic errors. To address this, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (EFLM WG-PRE) was established to lead in standardization and harmonization of preanalytical policies and practices at a European level. One of the key activities of the WG-PRE is the organization of the biennial EFLM-BD conference on the preanalytical phase to provide a forum for National Societies (NS) to discuss their issues. Since 2012, a year after the first Preanalytical phase conference, there has been a rapid growth in the number of NS with a working group engaged in preanalytical phase activities and there are now at least 19 countries that have one. As a result of discussions with NS at the third conference held in March 2015 five key areas were identified as requiring harmonisation. These were test ordering, sample transport and storage, patient preparation, sampling procedures and management of unsuitable specimens. The article below summarises the work that has and will be done in these areas. The goal of this initiative is to ensure the EFLM WG-PRE produces work that meets the needs of the European laboratory medicine community. Progress made in the identified areas will be updated at the next preanalytical phase conference and show that we have produced guidance that has enhanced standardisation in the preanalytical phase and improved patient safety throughout Europe.

Improving quality in the preanalytical phase through innovation, on behalf of the European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)

Abstract It is now undeniable that laboratory testing is vital for the diagnosis, prognostication and therapeutic monitoring of human disease. Despite the many advances made for achieving a high degree of quality and safety in the analytical part of diagnostic testing, many hurdles in the total testing process remain, especially in the preanalytical phase ranging from test ordering to obtaining and managing the biological specimens. The Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has planned many activities aimed at mitigating the vulnerability of the preanalytical phase, including the organization of three European meetings in the past 7 years. Hence, this collective article follows the previous three opinion papers that were published by the EFLM WGPRE on the same topic, and brings together the summaries of the presentations that will be given at the 4th EFLM-BD meeting “Improving quality in the preanalytical phase through innovation” in Amsterdam, 24–25 March, 2017.

Studies on the use of BD Vacutainer® SST II™ and RST™ in general practice: investigation of artefactual hyperkalaemia

Background Current sampling and transport conditions of samples in general practice can result in pseudohyperkalaemia. This study was undertaken to determine, in a general practice setting, whether there is any difference in haemolysis obtained when using BD Vacutainer® Rapid Serum Tubes (BD RST) compared with using BD Vacutainer® SST™ II Advance Blood Collection Tubes (BD SSTII). Methods Blood was collected from 353 patients requiring blood sampling who were attending 31 general practitioner practices in Belgium. For each patient, two BD SSTII tubes and two BD RST tubes were drawn in a randomized order. One of each pair of tubes was inverted five times, the other was not. Serum potassium concentration, serum LDH activity and haemolysis index were measured in each sample. Results There was no significant difference in measured potassium concentration according to tube type (P = 0.16). Measured LDH activities were 1.7% higher in serum collected into BD SSTII tubes compared to BD RST tubes (P = 0.02). When comparing serum from unmixed BD RST with BD SSTII tubes, there was a slight reduction in the haemolysis index but no significant difference in measured potassium concentration or LDH activity. Risk of hyperkalaemia was 4.8 times higher in serum from tubes that were incompletely filled compared to those that were filled with the correct amount of blood. Conclusion Both types of blood tubes are suitable for the measurement of serum potassium and LDH in patients from general practice. Tube inversion does not improve the accuracy of either serum potassium or LDH measurement. Blood tubes should be filled to the level recommended by the manufacturer to avoid artefactual increases in measured serum potassium concentration and LDH activity.

Evaluation of BD Vacutainer® PST™ II tubes for a wide range of immunoassays

Ospedale San Bortolo, Vincenza, Italy is currently using a Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics ADVIA LabCell Modular Automation System (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, Deerfield, IL, USA) which provides automated sample preparation and analysis. Maximising the number of clinical tests performed on a single plasma gel sample (BD Vacutainer PST II; BD Diagnostics, Franklin Lakes, NJ, USA) would optimise laboratory efficiency by reducing turnaround time and reduce the volume of blood drawn. Currently, aliquots of serum from non-gel serum tubes are utilised for immunoassay testing, while BD PST II gel tubes, which have a lithium heparin anticoagulant, are utilised for routine clinical chemistry testing (1, 2), with established reference intervals (data not shown). The serum samples have the disadvantage of requiring at least 30 min of clotting time prior to centrifugation. Also, plasma tubes normally yield an extra 15% to 20% of sample volume after centrifugation when compared to serum tubes of the same draw volume. A plasma gel tube provides, after centrifugation, a physical barrier that ensures the plasma and red blood cells remain separate throughout the analytical and post-analytical processes. This enables safety improvements and cost reduction by eliminating the need for aliquoting to a secondary tube. While there is literature that addresses the measurement of some analytes using plasma samples (3–5), given the advantages, there was a need to establish if it was possible to expand the use of plasma from a heparin

The economic impact of poor sample quality in clinical chemistry laboratories: results from a global survey.

Background Despite advances in clinical chemistry testing, poor blood sample quality continues to impact laboratory operations and the quality of results. While previous studies have identified the preanalytical causes of lower sample quality, few studies have examined the economic impact of poor sample quality on the laboratory. Specifically, the costs associated with workarounds related to fibrin and gel contaminants remain largely unexplored. Methods A quantitative survey of clinical chemistry laboratory stakeholders across 10 international regions, including countries in North America, Europe and Oceania, was conducted to examine current blood sample testing practices, sample quality issues and practices to remediate poor sample quality. Survey data were used to estimate costs incurred by laboratories to mitigate sample quality issues. Results Responses from 164 participants were included in the analysis, which was focused on three specific issues: fibrin strands, fibrin masses and gel globules. Fibrin strands were the most commonly reported issue, with an overall incidence rate of ∼3%. Further, 65% of respondents indicated that these issues contribute to analyzer probe clogging, and the majority of laboratories had visual inspection and manual remediation practices in place to address fibrin- and gel-related quality problems (55% and 70%, respectively). Probe maintenance/replacement, visual inspection and manual remediation were estimated to carry significant costs for the laboratories surveyed. Annual cost associated with lower sample quality and remediation related to fibrin and/or gel globules for an average US laboratory was estimated to be