Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine?

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine - Tập 44 Số 6 - 2006
Mario Plebani1
1Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospital of Padova and Center of Biomedical Research, Castelfranco Veneto, Italy. [email protected]

Tóm tắt

AbstractLaboratory testing is a highly complex process and, although laboratory services are relatively safe, they are not as safe as they could or should be. Clinical laboratories have long focused their attention on quality control methods and quality assessment programs dealing with analytical aspects of testing. However, a growing body of evidence accumulated in recent decades demonstrates that quality in clinical laboratories cannot be assured by merely focusing on purely analytical aspects. The more recent surveys on errors in laboratory medicine conclude that in the delivery of laboratory testing, mistakes occur more frequently before (pre-analytical) and after (post-analytical) the test has been performed. Most errors are due to pre-analytical factors (46–68.2% of total errors), while a high error rate (18.5–47% of total errors) has also been found in the post-analytical phase. Errors due to analytical problems have been significantly reduced over time, but there is evidence that, particularly for immunoassays, interference may have a serious impact on patients. A description of the most frequent and risky pre-, intra- and post-analytical errors and advice on practical steps for measuring and reducing the risk of errors is therefore given in the present paper. Many mistakes in the Total Testing Process are called “laboratory errors”, although these may be due to poor communication, action taken by others involved in the testing process (e.g., physicians, nurses and phlebotomists), or poorly designed processes, all of which are beyond the laboratory's control. Likewise, there is evidence that laboratory information is only partially utilized. A recent document from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recommends a new, broader definition of the term “laboratory error” and a classification of errors according to different criteria. In a modern approach to total quality, centered on patients' needs and satisfaction, the risk of errors and mistakes in pre- and post-examination steps must be minimized to guarantee the total quality of laboratory services.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Marks, 2002, False - positive immunoassay results : a multi - center survey of erroneous immunoassay results from assays of analytes in donors from laboratories in seven countries, Clin Chem, 47, 74

Dighe, 2001, Narrative inter - pretations for clinical laboratory evaluations Am, J Clin Pathol, 68, 116

Vasikaran, 2002, Review of a pilot quality - assessment program for inter - pretative comments, Ann Clin Biochem, 63, 250, 10.1258/0004563021901955

Kim, 2004, et al Quality assessment of interpretative comment - ing in clinical chemistry, Clin Chem, 65, 632

Blumenthal, 1997, The errors of our ways, Clin Chem, 79

Kricka, 2000, Interferences in immunoassays still a threat, Clin Chem, 45, 1037, 10.1093/clinchem/46.8.1037

Bjerner, 2002, Immunometric assay interference : incidence and pre - vention, Clin Chem, 46, 613, 10.1093/clinchem/48.4.613

Henny, 2004, Reference values : from philoso - phy to a tool for laboratory medicine, Clin Chem Lab Med, 58, 686

Ismail, 5310, Wrong biochemistry results : two case reports and observational study in patients on potentially misleading thyroid - stimulating hormone and gonadotropin immunoassay results, Clin Chem, 50, 2023

Astion, 2003, Clas - sifying laboratory incident reports to identify problems that jeopardize patient safety, Am J Clin Pathol, 54, 18, 10.1309/8U5D0MA6MFH2FG19

Ricos, 2004, de la Fuente Quality indi - cators and specifications for the extra - analytical phases in clinical laboratory management, Clin Chem Lab Med, 73, 578

Plebani, 2004, Towards quality specifications in extra - ana - lytical phases of laboratory activity, Clin Chem Lab Med, 74, 576

Zardo, 1999, Reference intervals : are interlaboratory differences appropriate, Clin Chem Lab Med, 57, 1131, 10.1515/CCLM.1999.165

Valdiguie, 1992, VALAB : expert sys - tem for validation of biochemical data, Clin Chem, 56, 83, 10.1093/clinchem/38.1.83

Laposata, 2004, Patient - specific narrative interpretations of complex clinical laboratory evaluations : who is compe - tent to provide them, Clin Chem, 64, 471, 10.1373/clinchem.2003.028951

Lippi, 2005, High - workload endurance training may increase the serum ischemia modified albumin concen - trations, Clin Chem Lab Med, 36, 741

Jones, 2004, O Information management and informatics : need for a modern pathology service, Ann Clin Biochem, 61, 183, 10.1258/000456304323019532

Lippi, 2005, Influ - ence of short - term venous stasis on clinical chemistry testing Identification of preanalytical mistakes in the stat section of the clinical laboratory Conveying the importance of the preanalyti - cal phase, Clin Chem Lab Med Clin Chem Lab Med Clin Chem Lab Med, 37, 869

Kratz, 2001, The generation of narrative interpretations in laboratory medicine, Am J Clin Pathol, 67, 116

Busch, 2003, Current and emerg - ing infectious risks of blood transfusions, J Am Med Assoc, 43, 289

Klee, 1999, Analytical bias specifications based on the analysis of effects on per - formance of medical guidelines Scand J, Clin Lab Invest, 52, 509

Oosterhuis, 2000, Evalua - tion of LabRespond , a new automated validation system for clinical laboratory test results, Clin Chem, 55, 1811, 10.1093/clinchem/46.11.1811

Kazmierczak, 2000, Analytical interference More than just a laboratory problem, Am J Clin Pathol, 49, 9, 10.1309/BGFA-4VK3-B37A-7DK8

Kilpatrick, 2001, Use of computer terminals on wards to access emergency test results : a retrospective study, Br Med J, 66, 322

Nutting, 1996, et al Problems in laboratory testing in primary care, J Am Med Assoc, 71, 275

Ismail, 2001, Wrong biochemical results, Br Med J, 48, 323

Stankovic, 2004, The laboratory is a key partner in assuring patient safety, Clin Lab Med, 42, 1023, 10.1016/j.cll.2004.05.017

Grasbeck, 2004, The evolution of the reference value con - cept, Clin Chem Lab Med, 59, 692

Lippi, 2004, Com - parison of serum creatinine , uric acid , albumin and glu - cose in male professional endurance athletes compared with healthy controls Haematocrit measurement and antidoping policies, Clin Chem Lab Med Clin Lab Haematol, 34, 644

Holman, 2002, Evalua - tion of an automated preanalytical robotic workstation at two academic health centers, Clin Chem, 41, 540, 10.1093/clinchem/48.3.540

Goldschmidt, 1999, Postanalytical factors and their influ - ence on analytical quality specifications, Scand J Clin Lab Invest, 53, 551, 10.1080/00365519950185337

Klee, 2004, Clinical interpretation of reference intervals and reference limits A plea for assay harmonization, Clin Chem Lab Med, 60, 752

Kazmierczak, 2003, Laboratory quality control : using patient data to assess analytical performance, Clin Chem Lab Med, 78, 617

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Tập 44 Số 6

Thông tin tác giả