Literature DB >> 16729864

Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine?

Mario Plebani1.   

Abstract

Laboratory 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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16729864     DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2006.123

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med        ISSN: 1434-6621            Impact factor:   3.694


  94 in total

1.  A Root Cause Analysis Into the High Error Rate in Clinical Immunohistochemistry.

Authors:  Steven A Bogen
Journal:  Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol       Date:  2019-02-22

2.  Multilevel research and the challenges of implementing genomic medicine.

Authors:  Muin J Khoury; Ralph J Coates; Mary L Fennell; Russell E Glasgow; Maren T Scheuner; Sheri D Schully; Marc S Williams; Steven B Clauser
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

Review 3.  Effectiveness of automated notification and customer service call centers for timely and accurate reporting of critical values: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Edward B Liebow; James H Derzon; John Fontanesi; Alessandra M Favoretto; Rich Ann Baetz; Colleen Shaw; Pamela Thompson; Diana Mass; Robert Christenson; Paul Epner; Susan R Snyder
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 3.281

4.  Errors in medicine and errors in laboratory medicine: what is the difference?

Authors:  Cosimo Ottomano
Journal:  Blood Transfus       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.443

5.  Communication skills in diagnostic pathology.

Authors:  Hans-Anton Lehr; Fred T Bosman
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 4.064

6.  A guide for measurement of circulating metabolic hormones in rodents: Pitfalls during the pre-analytical phase.

Authors:  Maximilian Bielohuby; Sarah Popp; Martin Bidlingmaier
Journal:  Mol Metab       Date:  2012-08-09       Impact factor: 7.422

7.  Rapid isolation of blood plasma using a cascaded inertial microfluidic device.

Authors:  M Robinson; H Marks; T Hinsdale; K Maitland; G Coté
Journal:  Biomicrofluidics       Date:  2017-03-24       Impact factor: 2.800

Review 8.  The Henry Ford production system: LEAN process redesign improves service in the molecular diagnostic laboratory: a paper from the 2008 William Beaumont hospital symposium on molecular pathology.

Authors:  Milena Cankovic; Ruan C Varney; Lisa Whiteley; Ron Brown; Rita D'Angelo; Dhananjay Chitale; Richard J Zarbo
Journal:  J Mol Diagn       Date:  2009-08-06       Impact factor: 5.568

9.  Discovering knowledge on pediatric fluid therapy and dysnatremias from quantitative data found in electronic medical records.

Authors:  Steve L Pham; Jonathan P Bickel; Michael L Moritz; James E Levin
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2010-11-13

10.  Pre-analytical requirements.

Authors:  John H Livesey; M Jane Ellis; Margaret J Evans
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2008-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.