Literature DB >> 28924316

Quantitative assessment of prevalence of pre-analytical variables and their effect on coagulation assay. Can intervention improve patient safety?

Ravi Bhushan1, Arijit Sen2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Very few Indian studies exist on evaluation of pre-analytical variables affecting "Prothrombin Time" the commonest coagulation assay performed. The study was performed in an Indian tertiary care setting with an aim to assess quantitatively the prevalence of pre-analytical variables and their effects on the results (patient safety), for Prothrombin time test. The study also evaluated their effects on the result and whether intervention, did correct the results.
METHODS: The firstly evaluated the prevalence for various pre-analytical variables detected in samples sent for Prothrombin Time testing. These samples with the detected variables wherever possible were tested and result noted. The samples from the same patients were repeated and retested ensuring that no pre-analytical variable is present. The results were again noted to check for difference the intervention produced.
RESULTS: The study evaluated 9989 samples received for PT/INR over a period of 18 months. The prevalence of different pre-analytical variables was found to be 862 (8.63%). The proportion of various pre-analytical variables detected were haemolysed samples 515 (5.16%), over filled vacutainers 62 (0.62%), under filled vacutainers 39 (0.39%), low values 205 (2.05%), clotted samples 11 (0.11%), wrong labeling 4 (0.04%), wrong vacutainer use 2 (0.02%), chylous samples 7 (0.07%) and samples with more than one variable 17 (0.17%). The comparison of percentage of samples showing errors were noted for the first variables since they could be tested with and without the variable in place. The reduction in error percentage was 91.5%, 69.2%, 81.5% and 95.4% post intervention for haemolysed, overfilled, under filled and samples collected with excess pressure at phlebotomy respectively.
CONCLUSION: Correcting the variables did reduce the error percentage to a great extent in these four variables and hence the variables are found to affect "Prothrombin Time" testing and can hamper patient safety.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coagulation assay; Indian study; Intervention; Pre-analytical variables

Year:  2017        PMID: 28924316      PMCID: PMC5592262          DOI: 10.1016/j.mjafi.2016.12.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Armed Forces India        ISSN: 0377-1237


  25 in total

1.  An audit of error rates in a UK district hospital transfusion laboratory.

Authors:  M Galloway; R Woods; S Whitehead; G Baird; D Stainsby
Journal:  Transfus Med       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 2.019

2.  Impact of evacuated collection tube fill volume and mixing on routine coagulation testing using 2.5-ml (pediatric) tubes.

Authors:  Jung Chuang; Melanie A Sadler; Daniel M Witt
Journal:  Chest       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 9.410

Review 3.  Preanalytical variability: the dark side of the moon in laboratory testing.

Authors:  Giuseppe Lippi; Gian Cesare Guidi; Camilla Mattiuzzi; Mario Plebani
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Types and frequency of preanalytical errors in haematology lab.

Authors:  Shashi Upreti; Sanjay Upreti; Rani Bansal; Nadia Jeelani; Vinay Bharat
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2013-11-10

5.  Prolonged prothrombin time and activated partial thromboplastin time due to underfilled specimen tubes with 109 mmol/L (3.2%) citrate anticoagulant.

Authors:  J Reneke; J Etzell; S Leslie; V L Ng; E L Gottfried
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.493

6.  Role of training activities for the reduction of pre-analytical errors in laboratory samples from primary care.

Authors:  Adolfo Romero; Andrés Cobos; Juan Gómez; Manuel Muñoz
Journal:  Clin Chim Acta       Date:  2011-09-22       Impact factor: 3.786

Review 7.  Managing the pre- and post-analytical phases of the total testing process.

Authors:  Robert Hawkins
Journal:  Ann Lab Med       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 3.464

8.  Patient safety in the clinical laboratory: a longitudinal analysis of specimen identification errors.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Wagar; Lorraine Tamashiro; Bushra Yasin; Lee Hilborne; David A Bruckner
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2006-11       Impact factor: 5.534

Review 9.  Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories.

Authors:  Giuseppe Lippi; Norbert Blanckaert; Pierangelo Bonini; Sol Green; Steve Kitchen; Vladimir Palicka; Anne J Vassault; Mario Plebani
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 3.694

10.  Toward optimal laboratory use. Problems in laboratory testing in primary care.

Authors:  P A Nutting; D S Main; P M Fischer; T M Stull; M Pontious; M Seifert; D J Boone; S Holcomb
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-02-28       Impact factor: 56.272

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.