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.

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.

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.

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.

This document provides a joint recommendation for venous blood sampling of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) and Latin American Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE-LATAM) of the Latin America Confederation of Clinical Biochemistry (COLABIOCLI). It offers guidance on the requirements for ensuring that blood collection is a safe and patient-centered procedure and provides practical guidance on how to successfully overcome potential barriers and obstacles to its widespread implementation. The target audience for this recommendation are healthcare staff members directly involved in blood collection. This recommendation applies to the use of a closed blood collection system and does not provide guidance for the blood collection with an open needle and syringe and catheter collections. Moreover, this document neither addresses patient consent, test ordering, sample handling and transport nor collection from children and unconscious patients. The recommended procedure is based on the best available evidence. Each step was graded using a system that scores the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendation. The process of grading was done at several face-to-face meetings involving the same mixture of stakeholders stated previously. The main parts of this recommendation are: 1) Pre-sampling procedures, 2) Sampling procedure, 3) Post-sampling procedures and 4) Implementation. A first draft of the recommendation was circulated to EFLM members for public consultation. WG-PRE-LATAM was also invited to comment the document. A revised version has been sent for voting on to all EFLM and COLABIOCLI members and has been officially endorsed by 33/40 EFLM and 21/21 COLABIOCLI members. We encourage professionals throughout Europe and Latin America to adopt and implement this recommendation to improve the quality of blood collection practices and increase patient and workers safety.

Introduction Scope of the guidance Disclaimer Methodology I. Pre-sampling General considerations on appropriate mode of communication with the patient Patient position Step 1. Patient identification (1C) Step 2. Verify patient is fasting and properly prepared (1B) Step 3. Obtain supplies required for venous blood collection (2C) Step 4. Labeling and/or identifying tubes (1C) II. Sampling Step 5. Put on gloves (1C) Step 6. Apply tourniquet (1A) Step 7. Select venepuncture site (1B) Step 8. Clean sampling site (1B) Step 9. Puncture the vein (1A) Step 10. Drawing blood into the first tube (1A) Step 11. Release the tourniquet (1A) Step 12. Gently invert the tubes once immediately after collection (1B) Step 13. Draw additional tubes following the recommended order of draw (1B) Step 14. Remove the needle from the vein and ensure the safety mechanism is activated (1A) Step 15. Dispose of the needle (1A) Step 16. Bandage the puncture site (1C) Step 17. Tell the patient to apply gentle pressure and do not bend the arm (1C) Step 18. Invert all tubes at least 4 more times (1B) Step 19. Remove gloves (1A) III. Post sampling Step 20. Advise the patient to rest for 5 min (1B) IV. Implementation of the guidelines Potential barriers and challenges Framework for a successful implementation of this recommendation Conclusions References

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

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 WG-PRE 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.