Spanish Preanalytical Quality Monitoring Program (SEQC), an overview of 12 years’ experience

Llopis, María Antonia; Bauça, Josep Miquel; Barba, Nuria; Álvarez, Virtudes; Ventura, Montserrat Carbonell; Ibarz, Mercè; Gómez-Rioja, Rubén; Marzana, Itziar; Puente, Juan José; Segovia, Marta; Martínez, D. J. Clínica Universitaria Díez; Alsina, M. Jesús

doi:10.1515/cclm-2016-0382

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Consistent with our findings, the Spanish Preanalytical Quality Monitoring Program found that nonreceived samples (34.5%, 37.5%) and hemolysis (29.3%, 36.2%) are the most frequent cause of serum sample rejections for the span of 12 years. [ 17 ] In another study, nonreceived samples (25.5%) were reported as the major preanalytical errors. [ 18 ] This error is a process indicator that provides data on sample collection since nonreceived samples will prompt a new request for sample collection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of preanalytical errors in a clinical chemistry laboratory: A 2-year study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Patient safety and medical diagnosis of patients are mainly influenced by laboratory results. The present study aimed to evaluate the errors in the preanalytical phase of testing in a Clinical Chemistry diagnostic laboratory. A review was conducted at the Clinical Chemistry Laboratory of a hospital in Saudi Arabia from January 2019 to December 2020. Using the laboratory information system, the data of all canceled tests and requests were retrieved and evaluated for preanalytical errors. A total of 55,345 laboratory test requests and samples from different departments were evaluated for preanalytical errors. An overall rate of 12.1% (6705) was determined as preanalytical errors. The occurrence of these errors was found to be highest in the emergency department (21%). The leading preanalytical errors were nonreceived samples (3.7%) and hemolysis (3.5%). The annual preanalytical errors revealed an increasing rate in outpatient and inpatient departments, while a decreasing rate was observed in the emergency department. An increased rate of errors was also noted for the 2-year study period from 11.3% to 12.9%. The preanalytical phase has a significant impact on the quality of laboratory results. The rate of error in the study was high and the leading causes were nonreceived samples and hemolysis. An increased occurrence of hemolyzed samples in the outpatient department was noted. Enhanced educational efforts emphasizing specimen quality issues and training in sample collection among hospital staff must be carried out.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of preanalytical errors in a clinical chemistry laboratory: A 2-year study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The rates were similar to Llopis's study, which stated the rate of incorrect container as 0.013% and 0.009% for two time periods. 23 Sample not received was the least frequent error and also showed a significant decrease. However, the studies in Spain and in the USA indicated the rates were much higher of 0.23% and 0.01%, respectively.…”

Section: Qis On Specimen Rejection In Laboratories In Zhejiang Provinmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…21 Llopis et al stated sample rejection due to clotting was 0.054% in Spanish pre-analytical quality monitoring program. 23 The main cause of clotting is directly related to the blood collection process and attributed to human factors, such as absence of standardized collection procedure, insufficient mixing after blood withdrawal, and prolonged storage. 24,25 The greatest magnitude of decrease was observed for the rate of incorrect sample type.…”

Section: Qis On Specimen Rejection In Laboratories In Zhejiang Provinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Three years’ experience of quality monitoring program on pre‐analytical errors in china

Xia

Shan

2021

Clinical Laboratory Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The results of the QC, in terms of how many events of control are out of the acceptability limits compared with the total QC events, provide for the likelihood of detection of a failure in the process. Similarly, there have been developed QC programs for the preanalytical phase (Florin, Oyaert, Van Maerken, & Devreese, 2018; Kristensen, Moberg Aakre, Kristoffersen, & Sandberg, 2014; Llopis et al, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Defining and Managing the Preanalytical Phase With FMECA: Automation and/or “Human” Control

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Our scope is to provide methodological elements on how to manage effectively the preanalytical phase in the laboratory testing process, by objectively measuring the risk connected to the phases handled by man with respect to those managed by machines. Background: Preanalytical errors account for most of the mistakes related to laboratory testing and can affect patient care. Hence, it is necessary to manage the risk connected to the preanalytical phase, as required by certification and accreditation bodies. The risk assessment discloses the steps at greater risk and gives indications to make decisions. Method: We have reviewed the state of art in the automation of the preanalytical phase, addressing needs and problems. We have used the proactive risk assessment methodology FMECA (Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis) to identify the most critical phases in our preanalytical process and have calculated the risk associated. Results: The most critical phases were the human controlled ones. In particular, the highest risk indexes were associated to manual acceptance of test orders, identification of the patients, tube labeling, and sample collection. Conclusion: Automation in the preanalytical phase is fundamental to replace, support, or extend the human contribution. Nevertheless each organization is different about workloads and competencies, so the most suitable management must be tailor-made in each context. Application: We present a method by which each organization is able to find its best balance between automation and human contribution in the control of the preanalytical phase.

show abstract

Spanish Preanalytical Quality Monitoring Program (SEQC), an overview of 12 years’ experience

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

Analysis of preanalytical errors in a clinical chemistry laboratory: A 2-year study

Analysis of preanalytical errors in a clinical chemistry laboratory: A 2-year study

Three years’ experience of quality monitoring program on pre‐analytical errors in china

Defining and Managing the Preanalytical Phase With FMECA: Automation and/or “Human” Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About