Search

Since the beginning of laboratory medicine, the main focus was to provide high quality analytics. Over time the importance of the extra-analytical phases and their contribution to the overall quality became evident. However, as the initial preanalytical processes take place outside of the laboratory and mostly without its supervision, all professions participating in these process steps, from test selection to sample collection and transport, need to engage accordingly. Focusing solely on intra-laboratory processes will not be sufficient to achieve the best possible preanalytical quality. The Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has provided several recommendations, opinion papers and scientific evidence over the past years, aiming to standardize the preanalytical phase across Europe. One of its strategies to reach this goal are educational efforts. As such, the WG-PRE has organized five conferences in the past decade with the sole focus on preanalytical quality. This year's conference mainly aims to depict the views of different professions on preanalytical processes in order to acquire common ground as basis for further improvements. This article summarizes the content of this 6th preanalytical conference.

Introduction: No guideline currently exists on how to detect or document haemolysis, icterus or lipemia (HIL) in blood samples, nor on subsequent use of this information. The EFLM WG-PRE has performed a survey for assessing current practices of European laboratories in HIL monitoring. This second part of two coherent articles is focused on HIL. Materials and methods: An online survey, containing 39 questions on preanalytical issues, was disseminated among EFLM member countries. Seventeen questions exclusively focused on assessment, management and follow-up actions of HIL in routine blood samples. Results: Overall, 1405 valid responses from 37 countries were received. A total of 1160 (86%) of all responders stating to analyse blood samples - monitored HIL. HIL was mostly checked in clinical chemistry samples and less frequently in those received for coagulation, therapeutic drug monitoring and serology/infectious disease testing. HIL detection by automatic HIL indices or visual inspection, along with haemolysis cut-offs definition, varied widely among responders. A quarter of responders performing automated HIL checks used internal quality controls. In haemolytic/icteric/lipemic samples, most responders (70%) only rejected HIL-sensitive parameters, whilst about 20% released all test results with general comments. Other responders did not analysed but rejected the entire sample, while some released all tests, without comments. Overall, 26% responders who monitored HIL were using this information for monitoring phlebotomy or sample transport quality. Conclusion: Strategies for monitoring and treating haemolytic, icteric or lipemic samples are quite heterogeneous in Europe. The WG-PRE will use these insights for developing and providing recommendations aimed at harmonizing strategies across Europe.

Introduction: Compared to other activities of the testing process, the preanalytical phase is plagued by a lower degree of standardization, which makes it more vulnerable to errors. With the aim of providing guidelines and recommendations, the EFLM WG-PRE issued a survey across European medical laboratories, to gather information on local preanalytical practices. This is part one of two coherent articles, which covers all practices on monitoring preanalytical quality except haemolysis, icterus and lipemia (HIL). Materials and methods: An online survey, containing 39 questions dealing with a broad spectrum of preanalytical issues, was disseminated to EFLM member countries. The survey included questions on willingness of laboratories to engage in preanalytical issues. Results: Overall, 1405 valid responses were received from 37 countries. 1265 (94%) responders declared to monitor preanalytical errors. Assessment, documentation and further use of this information varied widely among respondents and partially among countries. Many responders were interested in a preanalytical online platform, holding information on various aspects of the preanalytical phase (N = 1177; 87%), in a guideline for measurement and evaluation of preanalytical variables (N = 1235; 92%), and in preanalytical e-learning programs or webinars (N = 1125; 84%). Fewer responders were interested in, or already participating in, preanalytical EQA programs (N = 951; 71%). Conclusion: Although substantial heterogeneity was found across European laboratories on preanalytical phase monitoring, the interest in preanalytical issues was high. A large majority of participants indicated an interest in new guidelines regarding preanalytical variables and learning activities. This important data will be used by the WG-PRE for providing recommendations on the most critical issues.

Transportation of blood samples is a major part of the preanalytical pathway and can be crucial in delaying laboratory results to the clinicians. A variety of aspects however makes sample transportation a complex, challenging and often overlooked task that needs thorough planning and dedicated resources. The purpose of this review is to outline the options available for this task and to emphasize the preanalytical aspects that need consideration in this process, e.g. performance specifications for sample transportation as stated in ISO standards 15189 and 20658, quality control of automated transportation systems, monitoring of sample integrity parameters and temperature surveillance in general and for external samplers in particular. All these are tasks that the laboratory must assure on a daily basis in terms of continuous quality control, and simultaneously the laboratory must remain alert to alterations in clinical demands (sample frequency, turn-around-times) and new regulations within this area (e.g. the recent General Data Protection Regulation from the EU).

It has been well documented over recent years that the preanalytical phase is a leading contributor to errors in the total testing process (TTP). There has however been great progress made in recent years due to the exponential growth of working groups specialising in the field. Patient safety is clearly at the forefront of any healthcare system and any reduction in errors at any stage will improve patient safety. Venous blood collection is a key step in the TTP, and here we review the key errors that occur in venous phlebotomy process and summarise the evidence around their significance to patient safety. Recent studies have identified that patient identification and tube labelling are the steps that carry the highest risk with regard to patient safety. Other studies have shown that in 16.1% of cases, patient identification is incorrectly performed and that 56% of patient identification errors are due to poor labelling practice. We recommend that patient identification must be done using open questions and ideally three separate pieces of information. Labelling of the tube or linking the identity of the patient to the tube label electronically must be done in the presence of the patient whether it is before or after sampling. Combined this will minimise any chance of patient misidentification.

This document provides a joint recommendation for venous blood sampling of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) and Latin American Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE-LATAM) of the Latin America Confederation of Clinical Biochemistry (COLABIOCLI). It offers guidance on the requirements for ensuring that blood collection is a safe and patient-centered procedure and provides practical guidance on how to successfully overcome potential barriers and obstacles to its widespread implementation. The target audience for this recommendation are healthcare staff members directly involved in blood collection. This recommendation applies to the use of a closed blood collection system and does not provide guidance for the blood collection with an open needle and syringe and catheter collections. Moreover, this document neither addresses patient consent, test ordering, sample handling and transport nor collection from children and unconscious patients. The recommended procedure is based on the best available evidence. Each step was graded using a system that scores the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendation. The process of grading was done at several face-to-face meetings involving the same mixture of stakeholders stated previously. The main parts of this recommendation are: 1) Pre-sampling procedures, 2) Sampling procedure, 3) Post-sampling procedures and 4) Implementation. A first draft of the recommendation was circulated to EFLM members for public consultation. WG-PRE-LATAM was also invited to comment the document. A revised version has been sent for voting on to all EFLM and COLABIOCLI members and has been officially endorsed by 33/40 EFLM and 21/21 COLABIOCLI members. We encourage professionals throughout Europe and Latin America to adopt and implement this recommendation to improve the quality of blood collection practices and increase patient and worker