Article

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: 3.01). 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.

4 Bookmarks
 · 
393 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Owing to the decrease in values of biochemical glucose parameter in some samples from external extraction centres, and the risk this implies to patient safety; it was decided to apply an adaptation of the «Health Services Failure Mode and Effects Analysis» (HFMEA) to manage risk during the pre-analytical phase of sample transportation from external centres to clinical laboratories. A retrospective study of glucose parameter was conducted during two consecutive months. The analysis was performed in its different phases: to define the HFMEA topic, assemble the team, graphically describe the process, conduct a hazard analysis, design the intervention and indicators, and identify a person to be responsible for ensuring completion of each action. The results of glucose parameter in one of the transport routes, were significantly lower (P=.006). The errors and potential causes of this problem were analysed, and criteria of criticality and detectability were applied (score≥8) in the decision tree. It was decided to: develop a document management system; reorganise extractions and transport routes in some centres; quality control of the sample container ice-packs, and the time and temperature during transportation. This work proposes quality indicators for controlling time and temperature of transported samples in the pre-analytical phase. Periodic review of certain laboratory parameters can help to detect problems in transporting samples. The HFMEA technique is useful for the clinical laboratory.
    Revista de calidad asistencial: organo de la Sociedad Española de Calidad Asistencial 04/2014;
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Quality indicators (QIs) measure the extent to which set targets are attained and provide a quantitative basis for achieving improvement in care and, in particular, laboratory services. A body of evidence collected in recent years has demonstrated that most errors fall outside the analytical phase, while the pre- and post-analytical steps have been found to be more vulnerable to the risk of error. However, the current lack of attention to extra-laboratory factors and related QIs prevent clinical laboratories from effectively improving total quality and reducing errors. Errors in the pre-analytical phase, which account for 50% to 75% of all laboratory errors, have long been included in the 'identification and sample problems' category. However, according to the International Standard for medical laboratory accreditation and a patient-centered view, some additional QIs are needed. In particular, there is a need to measure the appropriateness of all test request and request forms, as well as the quality of sample transportation. The QIs model developed by a working group of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) is a valuable starting point for promoting the harmonization of available QIs, but further efforts should be made to achieve a consensus on the road map for harmonization.
    Biochemia Medica 02/2014; 24(1):105-113. · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In laboratory medicine, several studies have described the most frequent errors in the different phases of the total testing process, and a large proportion of these errors occur in the pre-analytical phase. Schemes for registration of errors and subsequent feedback to the participants have been conducted for decades concerning the analytical phase by External Quality Assessment (EQA) organizations operating in most countries. The aim of the paper is to present an overview of different types of EQA schemes for the pre-analytical phase, and give examples of some existing schemes. So far, very few EQA organizations have focused on the pre-analytical phase, and most EQA organizations do not offer pre-analytical EQA schemes (EQAS). It is more difficult to perform and standardize pre-analytical EQAS and also, accreditation bodies do not ask the laboratories for results from such schemes. However, some ongoing EQA programs for the pre-analytical phase do exist, and some examples are given in this paper. The methods used can be divided into three different types; collecting information about pre-analytical laboratory procedures, circulating real samples to collect information about interferences that might affect the measurement procedure, or register actual laboratory errors and relate these to quality indicators. These three types have different focus and different challenges regarding implementation, and a combination of the three is probably necessary to be able to detect and monitor the wide range of errors occurring in the pre-analytical phase.
    Biochemia Medica 02/2014; 24(1):114-122. · 1.87 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
3 Downloads
Available from
Aug 14, 2014