Search

Although manufacturers are compelled by the European IVD Directive, 98/79/EC, to have traceability of the values assigned to their calibrators if suitable higher order reference materials and/or procedures are available, there is still no equivalence of results for many measurands determined in clinical laboratories. The adoption of assays with metrological traceable results will have a significant impact on laboratory medicine in that results will be equivalent across different laboratories and different analytical platforms. The IFCC WG on Allowable Errors for Traceable Results has been formed to define acceptable limits for metrological traceability chains for specific measurands in order to promote the equivalence of patient results. These limits are being developed based on biological variation for the specific measurands. Preliminary investigations have shown that for some measurands, it is possible for manufacturers to assign values to assay calibrators with a measurement uncertainty that allows the laboratory enough combined uncertainty for their routine measurements. However, for other measurands, e.g., plasma sodium, current assays are too imprecise to fulfil limits based on biological variation. Although an alternative approach based on probability theory is being investigated, the most desirable approach would be for industry to improve measurement methods so that they meet clinical requirements.

Background: The determination of reliable, practical Quality Indicators (QIs) from presentation of the patient with a pathology request form through to the clinician receiving the report (the Total Testing Process or TTP) is a key step in identifying areas where improvement is necessary in laboratories. Methods: The Australasian QIs programme Key Incident Monitoring and Management System (KIMMS) began in 2008. It records incidents (process defects) and episodes (occasions at which incidents may occur) to calculate incident rates. KIMMS also uses the Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEA) to assign quantified risk to each incident type. The system defines risk as incident frequency multiplied by both a harm rating (on a 1-10 scale) and detection difficulty score (also a 1-10 scale). Results: Between 2008 and 2016, laboratories participating rose from 22 to 69. Episodes rose from 13.2 to 43.4 million; incidents rose from 114,082 to 756,432. We attribute the rise in incident rate from 0.86% to 1.75% to increased monitoring. Haemolysis shows the highest incidence (22.6% of total incidents) and the highest risk (26.68% of total risk). "Sample is suspected to be from the wrong patient" has the second lowest frequency, but receives the highest harm rating (10/10) and detection difficulty score (10/10), so it is calculated to be the 8th highest risk (2.92%). Similarly, retracted (incorrect) reports QI has the 10th highest frequency (3.9%) but the harm/difficulty calculation confers the second highest risk (11.17%). Conclusions: TTP incident rates are generally low (less than 2% of observed episodes), however, incident risks, their frequencies multiplied by both ratings of harm and discovery difficulty scores, concentrate improvement attention and resources on the monitored incident types most important to manage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides an analysis of the management and reporting of haemolysed specimens. Topics discussed include impact of haemolysis of blood samples on laboratory test results, interference with immunoassays, and guidelines from Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB) including correct collection techniques from laboratories, need to provide education and training to staff involved in collection of blood samples, and impact of H-Index levels.