Tze Ping Loh1, Andrea Rita Horvath2, Cheng-Bin Wang3, David Koch4, Giuseppe Lippi5, Nicasio Mancini6,7, Maurizio Ferrari8, Robert Hawkins9, Sunil Sethi10, Khosrow Adeli11. 1. Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore 119074, Singapore, Phone: (+65) 67724345, Fax: (+65) 67771613. 2. Department of Clinical Chemistry and Endocrinology, New South Wales Health Pathology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Sydney, Australia. 3. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, P.R. China. 4. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA. 5. Section of Clinical Biochemistry, Department of Neuroscience, Biomedicine and Movement, University of Verona, Verona, Italy. 6. Laboratory of Microbiology and Virology, University Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 7. IRCCS San Raffaele Hospital, Milan, Italy. 8. Università Vita-Salute San Raffaele, Milan, Italy. 9. Department of Laboratory Medicine, Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 10. Department of Laboratory Medicine, National University Hospital, Singapore, Singapore. 11. Clinical Biochemistry, The Hospital for Sick Children, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
Objectives: A global survey was conducted by the IFCC Task Force on COVID-19 to better understand how general biochemistry laboratories manage the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical processes to mitigate biohazard risks during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: An electronic survey was developed to record the general characteristics of the laboratory, as well as the pre-analytical, analytical, post-analytical and operational practices of biochemistry laboratories that are managing clinical samples of patients with COVID-19. Results: A total of 1210 submissions were included in the analysis. The majority of responses came from hospital central/core laboratories that serve hospital patient groups and handle moderate daily sample volumes. There has been a decrease in the use of pneumatic tube transport, increase in hand delivery and increase in number of layers of plastic bags for samples of patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Surgical face masks and gloves are the most commonly used personal protective equipment (PPE). Just >50% of the laboratories did not perform an additional decontamination step on the instrument after analysis of samples from patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A fifth of laboratories disallowed add-on testing on these samples. Less than a quarter of laboratories autoclaved their samples prior to disposal. Conclusions: The survey responses showed wide variation in pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical practices in terms of PPE adoption and biosafety processes. It is likely that many of the suboptimal biosafety practices are related to practical local factors, such as limited PPE availability and lack of automated instrumentation.
Objectives: A global survey was conducted by the IFCC Task Force on COVID-19 to better understand how general biochemistry laboratories manage the pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical processes to mitigate biohazard risks during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Methods: An electronic survey was developed to record the general characteristics of the laboratory, as well as the pre-analytical, analytical, post-analytical and operational practices of biochemistry laboratories that are managing clinical samples of patients with COVID-19. Results: A total of 1210 submissions were included in the analysis. The majority of responses came from hospital central/core laboratories that serve hospital patient groups and handle moderate daily sample volumes. There has been a decrease in the use of pneumatic tube transport, increase in hand delivery and increase in number of layers of plastic bags for samples of patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. Surgical face masks and gloves are the most commonly used personal protective equipment (PPE). Just >50% of the laboratories did not perform an additional decontamination step on the instrument after analysis of samples from patients with clinically suspected or confirmed COVID-19. A fifth of laboratories disallowed add-on testing on these samples. Less than a quarter of laboratories autoclaved their samples prior to disposal. Conclusions: The survey responses showed wide variation in pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical practices in terms of PPE adoption and biosafety processes. It is likely that many of the suboptimal biosafety practices are related to practical local factors, such as limited PPE availability and lack of automated instrumentation.
Authors: Haiting Liu; Leping Liu; Junhua Zhang; Xueling Shang; Sai Chen; Xisheng Li; Rong Gui; Rong Huang Journal: Vox Sang Date: 2021-02-02 Impact factor: 2.996
Authors: Paul Hofman; Jacques Boutros; Didier Benchetrit; Jonathan Benzaquen; Sylvie Leroy; Virginie Tanga; Olivier Bordone; Maryline Allégra; Virginie Lespinet; Julien Fayada; Charlotte Maniel; Jennifer Griffonnet; Eric Selva; Giancarlo Troncone; Giuseppe Portella; Thibaut Lavrut; Richard Chemla; Michel Carles; Marius Ilié; Charles Marquette Journal: Ann Transl Med Date: 2021-06