Quality Indicators in Laboratory Medicine: From theory to practice: Preliminary data from the IFCC Working Group Project "laboratory Errors and Patient Safety"

Department of Laboratory Medicine and Center of Biomedical Research, University Hospital of Padova, Padova, Italy.
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.96). 02/2011; 49(5):835-44. DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2011.128
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The adoption of Quality Indicators (QIs) has prompted the development of tools to measure and evaluate the quality and effectiveness of laboratory testing, first in the hospital setting and subsequently in ambulatory and other care settings. While Laboratory Medicine has an important role in the delivery of high-quality care, no consensus exists as yet on the use of QIs focussing on all steps of the laboratory total testing process (TTP), and further research in this area is required.
In order to reduce errors in laboratory testing, the IFCC Working Group on "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" (WG-LEPS) developed a series of Quality Indicators, specifically designed for clinical laboratories. In the first phase of the project, specific QIs for key processes of the TTP were identified, including all the pre-, intra- and post-analytic steps. The overall aim of the project is to create a common reporting system for clinical laboratories based on standardized data collection, and to define state-of-the-art and Quality Specifications (QSs) for each QI independent of: a) the size of organization and type of activities; b) the complexity of processes undertaken; and c) different degree of knowledge and ability of the staff. The aim of the present paper is to report the results collected from participating laboratories from February 2008 to December 2009 and to identify preliminary QSs.
The results demonstrate that a Model of Quality Indicators managed as an External Quality Assurance Program can serve as a tool to monitor and control the pre-, intra- and post-analytical activities. It might also allow clinical laboratories to identify risks that lead to errors resulting in patient harm: identification and design of practices that eliminate medical errors; the sharing of information and education of clinical and laboratory teams on practices that reduce or prevent errors; the monitoring and evaluation of improvement activities.

Download full-text


Available from: Laura Sciacovelli, Aug 14, 2014
  • Source
    • "It has been suggested that along with handling of critical results, correct identification should be given the highest priority in the extra-analytical phases [32]. An IFCC working group has suggested that optimum performance should be a patient identification error percentage of less than 0.4% [9]. Identification errors also include mismatching of the patient identity given on the sample tube and the request form as well as adding an incorrect requesting physician [10] [32]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Harmonisation is likely to be an important contributor to ensure high quality laboratory testing, thus potentially improving patient outcome. Efforts for harmonisation must be made in the total testing process, from test requesting to communication of the laboratory test results and its consequences to the patient. In this article, suggestions are given about what level of harmonisation is possible at the various steps of the testing process, who could be responsible for facilitating and monitoring the effects of harmonisation, and what are likely barriers to achieving harmonisation. Harmonisation can be achieved at local, national and international levels, and will be most challenging when it involves more than one profession as in the extra-analytical phases. Key facilitators will be laboratory associations, regulatory bodies and accreditation systems, whereas barriers are likely to be reimbursement systems or economic factors, opinion leaders and manufacturers. A challenge is to try to turn barriers into facilitators. Harmonisation effects can in most settings be monitored by external quality assurance organisations provided that schemes are expanded to cover all relevant steps and phases. We must combine our efforts, both within our profession as well as in cooperation with others, to achieve harmonisation of the total testing process, in the best interests of the patient.
    Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry 12/2013; 432. DOI:10.1016/j.cca.2013.12.005 · 2.76 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background. In the C. Poma Hospital of Mantua we have been using a system of continuous surveillance of nosocomial infections based on microbiological data for the past 4 years. This monitoring estimates the incidence of the microorganisms found in cultures, especially those at risk of causing nosocomial infections. Materials and methods. Since June 2001 microbiological data have been registered using the Mercurio-Dianoema software and elaborated by means of Microsoft Excel in order to obtain information about isolated bacteria, especially those resistant to antibiotics. Results. Surveillance in "critical" wards revealed the presence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Candida albicans in the intensive care unit in the period 2003-2005. The most frequent bacteria in hemodialysis have been coagulase-negative Staphylococci and Staphylococcus aureus, with variable methicillin resistance. Conclusion. The analysis of microbiological data has promoted effective measures to reduce the incidence of these bacteria (increased rules of good practice, hand washing, etc.). If nosocomial infections or high-risk microorganisms occur, assessments are carried out; monitoring of the antibiotic resistance of the bacteria is very important. (G Ital Nefrol 2007; 24: (Suppl. S38) S33-8) Conflict of interest: None
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract The delivery of laboratory services has been described 40 years ago and defined with the foremost concept of "brain-to-brain turnaround time loop". This concept consists of several processes, including the final step which is the action undertaken on the patient based on laboratory information. Unfortunately, the need for systematic feedback to improve the value of laboratory services has been poorly understood and, even more risky, poorly applied in daily laboratory practice. Currently, major problems arise from the unavailability of consensually accepted quality specifications for the extra-analytical phase of laboratory testing. This, in turn, does not allow clinical laboratories to calculate a budget for the "patient-related total error". The definition and use of the term "total error" refers only to the analytical phase, and should be better defined as "total analytical error" to avoid any confusion and misinterpretation. According to the hierarchical approach to classify strategies to set analytical quality specifications, the "assessment of the effect of analytical performance on specific clinical decision-making" is comprehensively at the top and therefore should be applied as much as possible to address analytical efforts towards effective goals. In addition, an increasing number of laboratories worldwide are adopting risk management strategies such as FMEA, FRACAS, LEAN and Six Sigma since these techniques allow the identification of the most critical steps in the total testing process, and to reduce the patient-related risk of error. As a matter of fact, an increasing number of laboratory professionals recognize the importance of understanding and monitoring any step in the total testing process, including the appropriateness of the test request as well as the appropriate interpretation and utilization of test results.
    Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine 06/2011; 49(7):1131-3. DOI:10.1515/CCLM.2011.617 · 2.96 Impact Factor
Show more