Lisa Rooper1, Jamal Carter1, John Hargrove2, Sheri Hoffmann2, Stefan Riedel1,2. 1. Department of Pathology, School of Medicine, The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland. 2. Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Assessment of specimen rejection rates is an important laboratory quality measure for laboratories because of a potential negative impact on patient care. Here, we examined reasons for specimen rejection at a single, tertiary care healthcare institution and propose a framework for designing an efficient intervention. METHODS: During a 1-year period, we identified all specimens rejected at our hospital and performed an analysis of a wide range of associated variables: reason for rejection, patient location, type of phlebotomist, tests ordered, priority status, collection container used, transport time. RESULTS: Clotted and hemolyzed specimens accounted for the majority of rejected specimens, but significant differences in reasons for specimen rejection existed between patient care areas. Eighty-five percent of rejected specimens came from the Emergency Department and eight other inpatient care areas. Registered nurses drew approximately 85% of rejected specimens, while laboratory phlebotomy staff drew only 4%. CONCLUSIONS: While hemolysis and clotting are primary causes for specimen rejection, collection of all available data regarding specimen rejection data is essential for laboratories determining which factors are most significant causes of specimen rejection.
OBJECTIVES: Assessment of specimen rejection rates is an important laboratory quality measure for laboratories because of a potential negative impact on patient care. Here, we examined reasons for specimen rejection at a single, tertiary care healthcare institution and propose a framework for designing an efficient intervention. METHODS: During a 1-year period, we identified all specimens rejected at our hospital and performed an analysis of a wide range of associated variables: reason for rejection, patient location, type of phlebotomist, tests ordered, priority status, collection container used, transport time. RESULTS: Clotted and hemolyzed specimens accounted for the majority of rejected specimens, but significant differences in reasons for specimen rejection existed between patient care areas. Eighty-five percent of rejected specimens came from the Emergency Department and eight other inpatient care areas. Registered nurses drew approximately 85% of rejected specimens, while laboratory phlebotomy staff drew only 4%. CONCLUSIONS: While hemolysis and clotting are primary causes for specimen rejection, collection of all available data regarding specimen rejection data is essential for laboratories determining which factors are most significant causes of specimen rejection.
Authors: Laura K Snydman; Beth Harubin; Sanjaya Kumar; Jack Chen; Robert E Lopez; Deeb N Salem Journal: Am J Med Qual Date: 2011-09-14 Impact factor: 1.852
Authors: Nicholas J Heyer; James H Derzon; Linda Winges; Colleen Shaw; Diana Mass; Susan R Snyder; Paul Epner; James H Nichols; Julie A Gayken; Dennis Ernst; Edward B Liebow Journal: Clin Biochem Date: 2012-09 Impact factor: 3.281
Authors: Karin Bölenius; Johan Söderberg; Johan Hultdin; Marie Lindkvist; Christine Brulin; Kjell Grankvist Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2013-02 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Azadeh Stark; Bruce A Jones; Deborah Chapman; Karen Well; Richard Krajenta; Frederick A Meier; Richard J Zarbo Journal: Arch Pathol Lab Med Date: 2007-04 Impact factor: 5.534