Search

AIM: Blood Sampling Guidelines have been developed to target European emergency medicine-related professionals involved in the blood sampling process (e.g. physicians, nurses, phlebotomists working in the ED), as well as laboratory physicians and other related professionals. The guidelines population focus on adult patients. The development of these blood sampling guidelines for the ED setting is based on the collaboration of three European scientific societies that have a role to play in the preanalytical phase process: EuSEN, EFLM, and EUSEM. The elaboration of the questions was done using the PICO procedure, literature search and appraisal was based on the GRADE methodology. The final recommendations were reviewed by an international multidisciplinary external review group. RESULTS: The document includes the elaborated recommendations for the selected sixteen questions. Three in pre-sampling, eight regarding sampling, three post-sampling, and two focus on quality assurance. In general, the quality of the evidence is very low, and the strength of the recommendation in all the questions has been rated as weak. The working group in four questions elaborate the recommendations, based mainly on group experience, rating as good practice. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary working group was considered one of the major contributors to this guideline. The lack of quality information highlights the need for research in this area of the patient care process. The peculiarities of the emergency medical areas need specific considerations to minimise the possibility of errors in the preanalytical phase.

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.

Objectives: Legal regulations and guidelines such as the Guidelines of the German Medical Association for the Quality Assurance of Laboratory Medical Examinations (Rili-BAEK) and ISO 15189 apply to electronic laboratory reports. However, many laboratories struggle with practical implementation of these regulations and guidelines. Methods: Laboratory and legal experts analyse the relevant guidelines and provide checklists and practical recommendations for implementation. Results: Laboratories have less control over the display of electronic laboratory reports than over paper documents. However, an electronic report alone is legally sufficient and need not be accompanied by a paper copy. Rili-BAEK and ISO 15189 stipulate a set of minimum information in every report. The laboratory must verify that reports are transmitted and displayed correctly. To help laboratories do so, agreements between laboratories and the report recipients can clarify responsibilities. Conclusions: Electronic laboratory reports can improve patient care, but laboratories need to verify their quality. Towards this end, Rili-BAEK and ISO 15189 set out helpful provisions.

Für die Gewinnung von Blut für die Diagnostik ist die periphere venöse Blutentnahme das häufigste Vorgehen. Eine fehlerhafte Blutentnahme ist eine relevante Quelle fehlerhafter Befunde. Aus diesem Grund werden als Anleitung für die Abnehmenden die wichtigen Schritte praxisnah detailliert beschrieben. Zu den dargestellten Schritten zählen Verantwortlichkeiten, klinische Fragestellung und Testauswahl, Vorbereitung und Identifikation des Patienten, Durchführung der Entnahme und Probentransport.

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.

Following an ordered clinical chemistry plasma/serum test, ideally the venous blood specimen is adequately collected at a health care facility, then swiftly transported to and readily handled, analyzed and sometimes interpreted at a clinical chemistry laboratory followed by a report of the test result to the ordering physician to finally handle the result. However, often there are practical as well as sample quality reasons for short-or long-term storage of samples before and after analysis. If there are specific storage needs, the preanalytical handling practices are specified in the laboratory's specimen collection instructions for the ordered test analyte. Biobanking of specimens over a very long time prior to analysis includes an often neglected preanalytical challenge for preserved quality of the blood specimen and also involves administrative and additional practical handling aspects (specified in a standard operating procedure SOP) when demands and considerations from academic, industry, research organizations and authorities are included. This short review highlights some preanalytical aspects of plasma/serum short-and long-term storage that must be considered by clinicians, laboratory staff as well as the researchers.

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