37 research outputs found
Causes, consequences, detection, and prevention of identification errors in laboratory diagnostics.
No full textLaboratory diagnostics, a pivotal part of clinical decision making, is no safer than other areas of health-care, with most errors occurring in the manually intensive preanalytical process. Patient misidentification errors are potentially associated with the worst clinical outcome due to the potential for misdiagnosis and inappropriate therapy. While it is misleadingly assumed that identification errors occur at a low frequency in clinical laboratories, misidentification of general laboratory specimens is around 1% and can produce serious harm to patients, when not promptly detected. This article focuses on this challenging issue, providing an overview on the prevalence and leading causes of identification errors, analyzing the potential adverse consequences, and providing tentative guidelines for detection and prevention based on direct-positive identification, the use of information technology for data entry, automated systems for patient identification and specimen labeling, two or more identifiers during sample collection and delta check technology to identify significant variance of results from historical values. Once misidentification is detected, rejection and recollection is the most suitable approach to manage the specimen
Multicenter evaluation of the hemolysis index in automated clinical chemistry systems
No full textBackground: In vitro hemolysis, the prevailing cause of preanalytical error in routine laboratory diagnostics, might influence the reliability of several tests, affect the quality of the total testing process and jeopardize patient safety. Although laboratory instrumentation is now routinely equipped with systems capable of automatically testing and eventually correcting for hemolysis interference, to our knowledge there are no reports that have compared the efficiency of different analytical platforms for identifying and classifying specimens with hemolysis. Methods: Serum from a healthy volunteer was spiked with varying amounts of hemolyzed blood from the same volunteer, providing a serum free hemoglobin concentration ranging from 0.0 g/L to 2.0 g/L as measured by the reference cyanmethemoglobin assay. The spiked serum samples were shipped to seven separate laboratories and the hemolysis index (HI) was tested in triplicate on the following analytical platforms: Roche Modular System P (n=4) and Integra 400 Plus (n=1), Siemens Dimension RxL (n=3), ADVIA 2400 (n=1) and ADVIA 1800 (n=1), Olympus AU 680 (n=1) and Coulter DXC 800 (n=1). Results: Satisfactory agreement of HI results was observed among the various analytical platforms, despite a trend toward overestimation by the ADVIA 2400 and 1800. After normalizing results according to the instrument-specific alert value, discrepancies were considerably reduced. All instruments except for the Dimension RxL gave values normalized to the instrument-specific alert value, <1.0 for the sample with 0.048 g/L free hemoglobin, and >1.0 for the sample with 0.075 g/L free hemoglobin. The results of the four Modular System P tests were also highly reproducible among the different facilities. When evaluating instruments that provided quantitative HI results, the mean intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV) calculated for the triplicate determinations was always between 0.1% and 2.7%. Conclusions: The results of this multicenter evaluation confirm that efficiency of different analytical platforms to correctly identify and classify unsuitable samples is satisfactory. However, more effort should be placed on the standardization of reporting HI. All the instruments that we tested provide either quantitative or qualitative results that are essentially comparable, but which should always be compared with the instrument-specific alert values to harmonize their efficiency. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:934–9.Peer Reviewe
Multicenter evaluation of the hemolysis index in automated clinical chemistry systems.
No full textBackground: In vitro hemolysis, the prevailing cause of preanalytical error in routine laboratory diagnostics, might influence the reliability of several tests, affect the quality of the total testing process and jeopardize patient safety. Although laboratory instrumentation is now routinely equipped with systems capable of automatically testing and eventually correcting for hemolysis interference, to our knowledge there are no reports that have compared the efficiency of different analytical platforms for identifying and classifying specimens with hemolysis.
Methods: Serum from a healthy volunteer was spiked with varying amounts of hemolyzed blood from the same volunteer, providing a serum free hemoglobin concentration ranging from 0.0 g/L to 2.0 g/L as measured by the reference cyanmethemoglobin assay. The spiked serum samples were shipped to seven separate laboratories and the hemolysis index (HI) was tested in triplicate on the following analytical platforms: Roche Modular System P (n=4) and Integra 400 Plus (n=1), Siemens Dimension RxL (n=3), ADVIA 2400 (n=1) and ADVIA 1800 (n=1), Olympus AU 680 (n=1) and Coulter DXC 800 (n=1).
Results: Satisfactory agreement of HI results was observed among the various analytical platforms, despite a trend toward overestimation by the ADVIA 2400 and 1800. After normalizing results according to the instrument-specific alert value, discrepancies were considerably reduced. All instruments except for the Dimension RxL gave values normalized to the instrument-specific alert value, 1.0 for the sample with 0.075 g/L free hemoglobin. The results of the four Modular System P tests were also highly reproducible among the different facilities. When evaluating instruments that provided quantitative HI results, the mean intra-assay coefficient of variation (CV) calculated for the triplicate determinations was always between 0.1% and 2.7%.
Conclusions: The results of this multicenter evaluation confirm that efficiency of different analytical platforms to correctly identify and classify unsuitable samples is satisfactory. However, more effort should be placed on the standardization of reporting HI. All the instruments that we tested provide either quantitative or qualitative results that are essentially comparable, but which should always be compared with the instrument-specific alert values to harmonize their efficienc
Causes, consequences, detection, and prevention of identification errors in laboratory diagnostics.
No full textLaboratory diagnostics, a pivotal part of clinical decision making, is no safer than other areas of healthcare, with most errors occurring in the manually intensive preanalytical process. Patient misidentification errors are potentially associated with the worst clinical outcome due to the potential for misdiagnosis and inappropriate therapy. While it is misleadingly assumed that identification errors occur at a low frequency in clinical laboratories, misidentification of general laboratory specimens is around 1% and can produce serious harm to patients, when not promptly detected. This article focuses on this challenging issue, providing an overview on the prevalence and leading causes of identification errors, analyzing the potential adverse consequences, and providing tentative guidelines for detection and prevention based on direct-positive identification, the use of information technology for data entry, automated systems for patient identification and specimen labeling, two or more identifiers during sample collection and delta check technology to identify significant variance of results from historical values. Once misidentification is detected, rejection and recollection is the most suitable approach to manage the specimen. © 2009 by Walter de Gruyter
Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories.
No full textPrevention of medical errors is a major goal of healthcare, though healthcare workers themselves have not yet fully accepted or implemented reliable models of system error, and neither has the public. While there is widespread perception that most medical errors arise from an inappropriate or delayed clinical management, the issue of laboratory errors is receiving a great deal of attention due to their impact on the quality and efficiency of laboratory performances and patient safety. Haemolytic specimens are a frequent occurrence in clinical laboratories, and prevalence can be as high as 3.3% of all of the routine samples, accounting for up to 40%-70% of all unsuitable specimens identified, nearly five times higher than other causes, such as insufficient, incorrect and clotted samples. This article focuses on this challenging issue, providing an overview on prevalence and leading causes of in vivo and in vitro haemolysis, and tentative guidelines on identification and management of haemolytic samples in clinical laboratories. This strategy includes continuous education of healthcare personnel, systematic detection/quantification of haemolysis in any sample, immediate clinicians warning on the probability of in vivo haemolysis, registration of non-conformity, completing of tests unaffected by haemolysis and request of a second specimen for those potentially affected
Drug holidays: the most frequent type of noncompliance with calcium plus vitamin D supplementation in persistent patients with osteoporosis
No full textTereza Touskova,1 Magda Vytrisalova,1 Vladimir Palicka,2 Tereza Hendrychova,1 Leos Fuksa,1 Radka Holcova,1 Jana Konopacova,1 Ales Antonin Kubena1 1Department of Social and Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy in Hradec Kralove, Charles University in Prague, 2Osteocentre, Institute of Clinical Biochemistry and Diagnostics, Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Medicine and University Hospital in Hradec Kralove, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic Purpose: All current recommendations include calcium and vitamin D (Ca–D) as an integrated part of osteoporosis treatment. The purpose of this pilot study was to analyze compliance with a fixed combination of Ca–D in women persistent with the treatment.Patients and methods: An observational study was carried out in three osteocenters in the Czech Republic. Women with osteoporosis ≥55 years of age concurrently treated with oral ibandronate were eligible. Compliance was evaluated in a period of 3 months by Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS), tablet count, and self-report. Nonpersistence was defined as a MEMS-based gap in the use of Ca–D to be 30 days or more.Results: A total of 73 patients were monitored, of which 49 patients were analyzed (target population). Based on MEMS, mean overall compliance was 71%; good compliance (≥80%) was observed in 59% of the patients. As many as 71% of the patients took drug holidays (≥3 consecutive days without intake); overall compliance of these patients was 59% and was slightly lower on Fridays and weekends. Patients without drug holidays were fully compliant (did not omit individual doses). Compliance differed according to daily time at which the patients mostly used the Ca–D. Afternoon/evening takers showed a mean overall compliance of 82% while morning/night takers only 51% (P=0.049). Based on MEMS, tablet count, and self-report, compliance ≥75% was observed in 59%, 100%, and 87% of the patients, respectively. Outcomes obtained by the three methods were not associated with each other. Undesirable concurrent ingestion of Ca–D and ibandronate was present only twice.Conclusion: Despite almost perfect self-reported and tablet count-based compliance, MEMS-based compliance was relatively poor. Consecutive supplementation-free days were common; more than two-thirds of the patients took at least one drug holiday. This pilot study showed drug holiday to be the most important type of noncompliance with Ca–D in those who are persistent with the treatment. Keywords: patient compliance, medication adherence, Medication Event Monitoring System (MEMS), drug holidays, osteoporosis, calcium supplementation, self-report 
Preanalytical quality improvement : in quality we trust
No full textTotal quality in laboratory medicine should be defined as the guarantee that each activity throughout the total testing process is correctly performed, providing valuable medical decision-making and effective patient care. In the past decades, a 10-fold reduction in the analytical error rate has been achieved thanks to improvements in both reliability and standardization of analytical techniques, reagents, and instrumentation. Notable advances in information technology, quality control and quality assurance methods have also assured a valuable contribution for reducing diagnostic errors. Nevertheless, several lines of evidence still suggest that most errors in laboratory diagnostics fall outside the analytical phase, and the pre- and postanalytical steps have been found to be much more vulnerable. This collective paper, which is the logical continuum of the former already published in this journal 2 years ago, provides additional contribution to risk management in the preanalytical phase and is a synopsis of the lectures of the 2nd European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)-Becton Dickinson (BD) European Conference on Preanalytical Phase meeting entitled "Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust" (Zagreb, Croatia, 1-2 March 2013). The leading topics that will be discussed include quality indicators for preanalytical phase, phlebotomy practices for collection of blood gas analysis and pediatric samples, lipemia and blood collection tube interferences, preanalytical requirements of urinalysis, molecular biology hemostasis and platelet testing, as well as indications on best practices for safe blood collection. Auditing of the preanalytical phase by ISO assessors and external quality assessment for preanalytical phase are also discussed
Novel <em>CYP24A1 </em>Mutation in a Young Male Patient with Nephrolithiasis: Case Report
No full text\ua9 2019 The Author(s) Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.Background/Aims: The CYP24A1 gene encodes the vitamin D 24-hydroxylase enzyme, which hydroxylates active forms of vitamin D into inactive forms. Biallelic mutations in the CYP24A1 gene can lead to elevated levels of active vitamin D metabolites and, consequently, to hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, nephrocalcinosis, and nephrolithiasis; however, monoallelic mutations have been associated only with milder phenotypes. In the present manuscript, we report the case of a young male patient who presented hypercalcemia and nephrolithiasis, suppressed parathormone, and elevated 1,25 dihydroxy vitamin D levels. Methods: Biochemical analyses were performed on Cobas 8000, F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG, Basel, Switzerland. The proband was initially evaluated for occult malignancies by body imaging, serum electrophoresis, and tumor markers, which did not reveal any pathology. DNA samples of the proband and his sibling were then examined using Sanger sequencing. Results: Genetic analysis revealed 2 compound heterozygous CYP24A1 mutations (p.L148P and p.R223∗). The novel nonsense CYP24A1 mutation, p.R223∗, was also found heterozygously in other family members with a medical history of nephrolithiasis. Conclusions: The identification of this gene mutation causing hypercalcemia, hypercalciuria, and renal stones allows the specific management of endogenous vitamin D production
