Preanalytical phase for transfusion medicine and blood bank laboratory – tasks to complete

Background: This review describes and evaluates the most relevant preanalytical errors and their impact on subsequent laboratory diagnostics. Quality management for laboratory processes remains extremely important, despite current advancements in information technologies and fully automated routine procedures. Methods: This review is focused on specific preanalytical requirements for the blood bank and transfusion laboratory. Conclusions are done based on literature review. Results: Human errors, or lack of procedures, continue to be the cause of many errors within laboratory processes. The medical laboratory needs an impetus and stipulation to improve processes, to help eliminate errors, and meet regulatory guidelines. Conclusions: General preanalytical rules exist for clinical and research laboratories but differences in laboratory specialty and provided services influence compliance

Interferograms plotted with reference change value (RCV) may facilitate the management of hemolyzed samples

Background: The European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) have recommended an algorithm based on the reference change value (RCV) to evaluate hemolysis. We utilized this algorithm to analyze hemolysis-sensitive parameters. Methods: Two tubes of blood were collected from each of the 10 participants, one of which was subjected to mechanical trauma while the other was centrifuged directly. Subsequently, the samples were diluted with the participant's hemolyzed sample to obtain the desired hemoglobin concentrations (0, 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 g/L). ALT, AST, K, LDH, T.Bil tests were performed using Beckman Coulter AU680 analyzer. The analytical and clinical cut-offs were based on the biological variation for the allowable imprecision and RCV. The algorithms could report the values directly below the analytical cut-off or those between the analytical and clinical cut-offs with comments. If the change was above the clinical cut-off, the test was rejected. The linear regression was used for interferograms, and the hemoglobin concentrations corresponding to cut-offs were calculated via the interferograms. Results: The RCV was calculated as 29.6% for ALT. Therefore, ALT should be rejected in samples containing >5.9 g/L hemoglobin. The RCVs for AST, K, LDH, and T.Bil were calculated as 27.9%, 12.1%, 19.2%, and 61.2%, while the samples' hemoglobin concentrations for test rejection were 0.8, 1.6, 0.5, and 2.2 g/L, respectively. Conclusions: Algorithms prepared with RCV could provide evidence-based results and objectively manage hemolyzed samples.

Quality Indicators for Evaluating Errors in the Preanalytical Phase

Objective The aim of this study was to study the incidence of preanalytical errors in the clinical chemistry laboratory attached to a tertiary care hospital. Design and Methods The study was conducted in a clinical chemistry laboratory using the samples and forms received for analysis. Five hundred random samples were analyzed using a predefined set of quality indicators (QIs) over a period of 3 months. The incidence of each preanalytical error was described as a percentage of the total samples analyzed in the study. Statistical Analysis Individual QIs were assigned values as 0 and 1 and were used to assess each sample; 0 if the error was present, and 1 if absent. The incidence of each preanalytical error was described as a percentage of the total samples analyzed in the study. Result Out of the 500 samples observed, 138 samples were error free, while 21 samples had the maximum number of errors, that is, 6. The error committed most often was the omission of provisional diagnosis being mentioned on the requisition form. No preanalytical error was observed for QIs: selecting the appropriate blood collection vial or storage of sample. Conclusion This study confirms that error rate in the preanalytical phase is high and vastly ignored. Errors committed here may be overlooked, given the large number of samples received in the clinical laboratory of a tertiary center. To reduce these errors, the laboratory should provide training to all workers involved in the preanalytical phase. Daily or weekly QI scores should be recorded to assess and rectify shortcomings, thereby improving patient care.

The Andalusian Registry of Donors for Biomedical Research: Five Years of History

The mission of the Andalusian Public Health System Biobank is to offer the best options for biological samples of human origin and associated clinical information, protecting the rights of citizens who donate their samples for research. Since the Andalusian Biobank provides high-quality biological samples of all types in a specified format, adapting the preanalytical phase according to the requirements of the research, prospective collection and distribution of samples are being prioritized in order to contribute to the sustainability of the Biobank. The Andalusian Registry of Donors for Biomedical Research is a tool for the recruitment of donors and the prospective collection of samples. Its operation is based on the informed consent of donors for their incorporation into the Registry and contact with possible donors under request from specific projects. An additional advantage of this unique initiative is to ensure that societal actors work together throughout the entire research process, establishing alliances with patient associations and groups to develop joint actions and promote biomedical research. Here, we describe the creation, ethical–legal aspects, management and results of the Andalusian Registry of Donors for Biomedical Research after five years of operation.

An important source of preanalytical error in medical laboratories: centrifugation

Centrifugation separates particles within the specimen according to their shape, dimensions, and density and basically can be defined as a separation method. The centrifuge is an essential device in medical laboratories to prepare the serum, plasma, and urine samples for analysis. It is basically an electric device composed of the stationary (motor) and the motile (rotor) part. The centrifugation depends on two main variables: relative centrifugal force (RCF) and centrifugation time. The physical impact separating the specimen into its components in the centrifuge known as RCF is expressed as the multiples of gravitational acceleration (×g). RPM, defined as the number of rotations of the centrifuge per minute, shows the speed of the centrifuge. RCF value can be calculated by using RPM, and the centrifuge radius. Because models and sizes of centrifuges vary considerably, the use of gravity (g) forces instead of RPM is suggested. The centrifuges can be classified according to their usage, speed, technical specifications, and rotor type. An accurate and precise centrifugation process is essential to prevent errors in the preanalytical phase. The purpose of this document is to ensure the standardization of a good, precise protocol for the centrifugation process among the medical laboratories.

The CRESS checklist for reporting stability studies: on behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)

To ensure that clinical laboratories produce results that are both accurate and of clinical utility it is essential that only samples of adequate quality are analysed. Although various studies and databases assessing the stability of analytes in different settings do exist, guidance on how to perform and report stability studies is lacking. This results in studies that often do not report essential information, thus compromising transferability of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the Checklist for Reporting Stability Studies (CRESS) against which future studies should be reported to ensure standardisation of reporting and easy assessment of transferability of studies to other healthcare settings. The EFLM WG-PRE (European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase) produced the CRESS checklist following a detailed literature review and extensive discussions resulting in consensus agreement. The checklist consists of 20 items covering all the aspects that should be considered when producing a report on a stability study including details of what should be included for each item and a rationale as to why. Adherence to the CRESS checklist will ensure that studies are reported in a transparent and replicable way. This will allow other laboratories to assess whether published data meet the stability criteria required in their own particular healthcare scenario. The EFLM WG-PRE encourage researchers and authors to use the CRESS checklist as a guide to planning stability studies and to produce standardised reporting of future stability studies.

Incidents in Molecular Pathology: Frequency and Causes During Routine Testing

Context.— Errors in laboratory medicine could compromise patient safety. Good laboratory practice includes identifying and managing nonconformities in the total test process. Varying error percentages have been described in other fields but are lacking for molecular oncology. Objectives.— To gain insight into incident causes and frequency in the total test process from 8 European institutes routinely performing biomarker tests in non-small cell lung cancer and colorectal cancer. Design.— All incidents documented in 2018 were collected from all hospital services for pre-preanalytical entries before the biomarker test, as well as specific incidents for biomarker tests. Results.— There were 5185 incidents collected, of which 4363 (84.1%) occurred in the pre-preanalytical phase (all hospital services), 2796 of 4363 (64.1%) related to missing or incorrect request form information. From the other 822 specific incidents, 166 (20.2%) were recorded in the preanalytical phase, 275 (33.5%) in the analytical phase, and 194 (23.6%) in the postanalytical phase, mainly due to incorrect report content. Only 47 of 822 (5.7%) incidents were recorded in the post-postanalytical phase, and 123 (15.0%) in the complete total test process. For 17 of 822 (2.1%) incidents the time point was unknown. Pre-preanalytical incidents were resolved sooner than incidents on the complete process (mean 6 versus 60 days). For 1215 of 5168 (23.5%) incidents with known causes a specific action was undertaken besides documenting them, not limited to accredited institutes. Conclusions.— There was a large variety in the number and extent of documented incidents. Correct and complete information on the request forms and final reports are highly error prone and require additional focus.