Abstract
Laboratory testing is a highly complex process and, although laboratory services are relatively safe, they are not as safe as they could or should be. Clinical laboratories have long focused their attention on quality control methods and quality assessment programs dealing with analytical aspects of testing. However, a growing body of evidence accumulated in recent decades demonstrates that quality in clinical laboratories cannot be assured by merely focusing on purely analytical aspects. The more recent surveys on errors in laboratory medicine conclude that in the delivery of laboratory testing, mistakes occur more frequently before (pre-analytical) and after (post-analytical) the test has been performed. Most errors are due to pre-analytical factors (46–68.2% of total errors), while a high error rate (18.5–47% of total errors) has also been found in the post-analytical phase. Errors due to analytical problems have been significantly reduced over time, but there is evidence that, particularly for immunoassays, interference may have a serious impact on patients. A description of the most frequent and risky pre-, intra- and post-analytical errors and advice on practical steps for measuring and reducing the risk of errors is therefore given in the present paper. Many mistakes in the Total Testing Process are called “laboratory errors”, although these may be due to poor communication, action taken by others involved in the testing process (e.g., physicians, nurses and phlebotomists), or poorly designed processes, all of which are beyond the laboratory's control. Likewise, there is evidence that laboratory information is only partially utilized. A recent document from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) recommends a new, broader definition of the term “laboratory error” and a classification of errors according to different criteria. In a modern approach to total quality, centered on patients' needs and satisfaction, the risk of errors and mistakes in pre- and post-examination steps must be minimized to guarantee the total quality of laboratory services.
References
1. Kohn KT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS. To Err Is Human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999.Search in Google Scholar
2. Leape LL, Berwick DM. Five years after To Err Is Human. J Am Med Assoc 2005; 293:2384–90.10.1001/jama.293.19.2384Search in Google Scholar
3. Kalra J. Medical errors: impact on clinical laboratories and other critical areas. Clin Biochem 2004; 37:1052–62.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2004.08.009Search in Google Scholar
4. Forsman RW. Why is the laboratory an afterthought for managed care organizations? Clin Chem 1996; 42:813–6.10.1093/clinchem/42.5.813Search in Google Scholar
5. Plebani M. Charting the course of medical laboratories in a changing environment. Clin Chim Acta 2002; 319:87–100.10.1016/S0009-8981(02)00028-1Search in Google Scholar
6. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health care system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2001.Search in Google Scholar
7. Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2002; 48:691–8.10.1093/clinchem/48.5.691Search in Google Scholar
8. ISO/PDTS 22367 Medical laboratories − reduction of error through risk management and continual improvement − complementary elements [Draft, August 2005].Search in Google Scholar
9. Goldschmidt HM, Lent RW. Gross errors and work flow analysis in the clinical laboratory. Klin Biochem Metab 1995; 3:131–40.Search in Google Scholar
10. Lapworth R, Teal TK. Laboratory blunders revisited. Ann Clin Biochem 1994; 31:78–84.10.1177/000456329403100113Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Plebani M, Carraro P. Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency. Clin Chem 1997; 43:1348–51.10.1093/clinchem/43.8.1348Search in Google Scholar
12. Belk WP, Sunderman FW. A survey of the accuracy of chemical analyses in clinical laboratories. Am J Clin Pathol 1947; 17:853–61.10.1093/ajcp/17.11.853Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Steindel SJ, Howanitz PJ, Renner SW. Reasons for proficiency testing failures in clinical chemistry and blood gas analysis. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996; 120:1094–101.Search in Google Scholar
14. Witte DL, VanNess SA, Angstadt DS, Pennell BJ. Errors, mistakes, blunders, outliers, or unacceptable results: how many? Clin Chem 1997; 43:1352–6.10.1093/clinchem/43.8.1352Search in Google Scholar
15. Boone DJ. Is it safe to have a laboratory test? Accred Qual Assur 2004; 10:5–9.10.1007/s00769-004-0855-5Search in Google Scholar
16. Howanitz PJ, Steindel SJ. Digoxin therapeutic drug monitoring practices: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 666 institutions and 18,679 toxic levels. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993; 117:573–7.Search in Google Scholar
17. Schifman RB, Meier FA. Viral hepatitis serology test utilization. Q-Probes 93-01. Northfield, IL: College of American Pathologists, 1993.Search in Google Scholar
18. Renner SW, Howanitz PJ, Bachner P. Wristband identification errors reporting in 712 hospitals: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probe study of quality issues in transfusion practice. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1993; 117:573–7.Search in Google Scholar
19. Valenstein PN, Howanitz PJ. Ordering accuracy: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 577 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995; 119:117–22.Search in Google Scholar
20. Jones BA, Calam RR, Howanitz PJ. Chemistry specimen acceptability: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 453 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997; 121:19–26.Search in Google Scholar
21. Schifman RB, Steindel SJ, Howanitz PJ. Quality of telephone support by clinical laboratories: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study involving 459 institutions. Am J Clin Pathol 1996; 105:517A–518A.Search in Google Scholar
22. Dale JC, Howanitz PJ. Patient satisfaction in phlebotomy: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study. Lab Med 1996; 27:188–92.10.1093/labmed/27.3.188Search in Google Scholar
23. Howanitz PJ, Cembrowski GS. Postanalytical quality improvement: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of elevated calcium results in 525 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000; 124:504–10.10.5858/2000-124-0504-PQISearch in Google Scholar
24. Steindel SJ, Tetrault G. Quality control practices for calcium, cholesterol, digoxin and haemoglobin: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study in 505 hospital laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1998; 122:401–8.Search in Google Scholar
25. Howanitz PJ. Errors in laboratory medicine. Practical lessons to improve patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005; 129:1252–61.10.5858/2005-129-1252-EILMPLSearch in Google Scholar
26. Stroobants AK, Goldschmidt HM, Plebani M. Error budget calculations in laboratory medicine: linking the concepts of biological variation and allowable medical errors. Clin Chim Acta 2003; 333:169–76.10.1016/S0009-8981(03)00181-5Search in Google Scholar
27. Silverstein MD. An approach to medical errors and patient safety in laboratory services. A white paper. The Quality Institute Meeting, Atlanta, April 2003.Search in Google Scholar
28. Solomon DH, Hashimoto H, Daltroy L, Liang MH. Techniques to improve physicians' use of diagnostic tests: a new conceptual framework. J Am Med Assoc 1998; 280:2020–7.10.1001/jama.280.23.2020Search in Google Scholar PubMed
29. Altman DE, Clancy C, Blendon RJ. Improving patient safety. Five years after the IOM report. N Engl J Med 2004; 351:2041–2.10.1056/NEJMp048243Search in Google Scholar PubMed
30. Howanitz PJ, Renner SW, Walsh MK. Continuous wristband monitoring over 2 years decreases identification errors: a College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002; 126:809–15.10.5858/2002-126-0809-CWMOYDSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
31. Valenstein P, Meier F. Outpatient order accuracy. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of requisition order entry accuracy in 660 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999; 123:1145–50.10.5858/1999-123-1145-OOASearch in Google Scholar PubMed
32. Khoury M, Burnett L, McKay MA. Error rate in Australian chemical pathology laboratories. Med J Aust 1996; 165:128–30.10.5694/j.1326-5377.1996.tb124883.xSearch in Google Scholar
33. Plebani M, Bonini P. Interdepartmental cooperation may help avoid errors in medical laboratories. Br Med J 2002; 324:423–4.Search in Google Scholar
34. Lippi G, Brocco G, Franchini M, Schena F, Guidi G. Comparison of serum creatinine, uric acid, albumin and glucose in male professional endurance athletes compared with healthy controls. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:644–7.10.1515/CCLM.2004.110Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35. Lippi G, Franchini M, Guidi G. Haematocrit measurement and antidoping policies. Clin Lab Haematol 2002; 24:65–6.10.1046/j.1365-2257.2002.00425.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
36. Lippi G, Brocco G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Dima F, Guidi G. High-workload endurance training may increase the serum ischemia modified albumin concentrations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005; 43:741–4.10.1515/CCLM.2005.126Search in Google Scholar PubMed
37. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Guidi GC. Influence of short-term venous stasis on clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005; 43:869–75.10.1515/CCLM.2005.146Search in Google Scholar PubMed
38. Romero A, Munoz M, Ramos JR, Campos A, Ramirez G. Identification of preanalytical mistakes in the stat section of the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005; 43:974–5.10.1515/CCLM.2005.168Search in Google Scholar PubMed
39. Young DS. Conveying the importance of the preanalytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003; 41:884–7.10.1515/CCLM.2003.133Search in Google Scholar PubMed
40. Auchinleck GF, Lines RB, Godolphin WJ. Cost-effectiveness and benefits of automation and robotics. In: Kost GJ, editor. Clinical automation, robotics and optimization. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1996.Search in Google Scholar
41. Holman JW, Mifflin TE, Felder RA, Demers LM. Evaluation of an automated preanalytical robotic workstation at two academic health centers. Clin Chem 2002; 48:540–8.10.1093/clinchem/48.3.540Search in Google Scholar
42. Stankovic AK. The laboratory is a key partner in assuring patient safety. Clin Lab Med 2004; 24:1023–35.10.1016/j.cll.2004.05.017Search in Google Scholar PubMed
43. Busch MP, Kleinman SH, Nemo GJ. Current and emerging infectious risks of blood transfusions. J Am Med Assoc 2003; 289:959–62.10.1001/jama.289.8.959Search in Google Scholar PubMed
44. Westgard JO. Six Sigma quality design & control. Madison, WI: Westgard QC, Inc., 2001.Search in Google Scholar
45. Kricka LJ. Interferences in immunoassays – still a threat. Clin Chem 2000; 46:1037–8.10.1093/clinchem/46.8.1037Search in Google Scholar
46. Bjerner J, Nustad K, Norum LF, Olsen KH, Bormer OP. Immunometric assay interference: incidence and prevention. Clin Chem 2002; 48:613–21.10.1093/clinchem/48.4.613Search in Google Scholar
47. Marks V. False-positive immunoassay results: a multicenter survey of erroneous immunoassay results from assays of 74 analytes in 10 donors from 66 laboratories in seven countries. Clin Chem 2002; 48:2008–16.10.1093/clinchem/48.11.2008Search in Google Scholar
48. Ismail AA, Barth JH. Wrong biochemical results. Br Med J 2001; 323:705–6.10.1136/bmj.323.7315.705Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
49. Kazmierczak SC, Catrou PG. Analytical interference. More than just a laboratory problem. Am J Clin Pathol 2000; 113:9–11.Search in Google Scholar
50. Ismail AA, Walker PL, Barth JH, Lewandrowski KC, Jones R, Burr WA. Wrong biochemistry results: two case reports and observational study in 5310 patients on potentially misleading thyroid-stimulating hormone and gonadotropin immunoassay results. Clin Chem 2002; 48:2023–9.10.1093/clinchem/48.11.2023Search in Google Scholar
51. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Planning Report 04-1: The impact of calibration error in medical decision making. www.nist.gov/director/prog-ofc/report04.pdf (accessed 23 November 2005).Search in Google Scholar
52. Klee GG, Schryver PG, Kisabeth RM. Analytical bias specifications based on the analysis of effects on performance of medical guidelines Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999; 59:509–12.10.1080/00365519950185247Search in Google Scholar PubMed
53. Goldschmidt HM. Postanalytical factors and their influence on analytical quality specifications. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999; 59:551–4.10.1080/00365519950185337Search in Google Scholar PubMed
54. Astion ML, Shojana KG, Hamil TR, Kim S, Ng VL. Classifying laboratory incident reports to identify problems that jeopardize patient safety. Am J Clin Pathol 2003; 120:18–26.10.1309/8U5D0MA6MFH2FG19Search in Google Scholar
55. Oosterhuis WP, Ulenkate HJ, Goldschmidt HM. Evaluation of LabRespond, a new automated validation system for clinical laboratory test results. Clin Chem 2000; 46:1811–7.10.1093/clinchem/46.11.1811Search in Google Scholar
56. Valdiguié PM, Rogari E, Philippe H. VALAB: expert system for validation of biochemical data. Clin Chem 1992; 38:83–7.10.1093/clinchem/38.1.83Search in Google Scholar
57. Zardo L, Secchiero S, Sciacovelli L, Bonvicini P, Plebani M. Reference intervals: are interlaboratory differences appropriate? Clin Chem Lab Med 1999; 37:1131–3.10.1515/CCLM.1999.165Search in Google Scholar PubMed
58. Henny J, Petersen HP. Reference values: from philosophy to a tool for laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:686–91.10.1515/CCLM.2004.117Search in Google Scholar PubMed
59. Grasbeck R. The evolution of the reference value concept. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:692–7.10.1515/CCLM.2004.118Search in Google Scholar PubMed
60. Klee GG. Clinical interpretation of reference intervals and reference limits. A plea for assay harmonization. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:752–7.10.1515/CCLM.2004.127Search in Google Scholar PubMed
61. Jones R, O'Connor J. Information management and informatics: need for a modern pathology service. Ann Clin Biochem 2004; 41:183–91.10.1258/000456304323019532Search in Google Scholar PubMed
62. The Royal College of Pathologists. Guidelines for the provision of interpretative comments on biochemical reports. Bull R Coll Pathol 1998;104:25–8.Search in Google Scholar
63. Vasikaran SD, Penberthy L, Gill J, Scott S, Sikeris KA. Review of a pilot quality-assessment program for interpretative comments. Ann Clin Biochem 2002; 39:250–60.10.1258/0004563021901955Search in Google Scholar PubMed
64. Laposata M. Patient-specific narrative interpretations of complex clinical laboratory evaluations: who is competent to provide them? Clin Chem 2004; 50:471–2.10.1373/clinchem.2003.028951Search in Google Scholar PubMed
65. Kim EK, Sikaris KA, Gill J, Calleja J, Hickman PE, Beilby J, et al. Quality assessment of interpretative commenting in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem 2004; 50:632–7.10.1373/clinchem.2003.024877Search in Google Scholar PubMed
66. Kilpatrick ES, Holding S. Use of computer terminals on wards to access emergency test results: a retrospective study. Br Med J 2001; 322:1101–3.10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1101Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
67. Kratz A, Soderberg BL, Szczepiorkowski ZM, Dighe A, Versalovic J, Laposata M. The generation of narrative interpretations in laboratory medicine. Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 116(Suppl 1):S133–40.10.1309/F9B6-33HK-8B0B-8LNMSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
68. Dighe AS, Soderberg BL, Laposata M. Narrative interpretations for clinical laboratory evaluations Am J Clin Pathol 2001; 116(Suppl 1):S123–8.10.1309/M6T4-91H2-2KYB-EEK5Search in Google Scholar PubMed
69. Laposata ME, Laposata M, Van Cott EM, Buchner DS, Kashalo MS, Dighe AS. Physician survey of a laboratory medicine interpretive service and evaluation of the influence of interpretations on laboratory test ordering. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004; 128:1424–7.10.5858/2004-128-1424-PSOALMSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
70. Ross JW, Boone DJ. Institute on critical issues in health laboratory practice. Wilmington, DE: DuPont Press, 1989:173pp.Search in Google Scholar
71. Nutting PA, Main DS, Fisher PM, Stull TM, Pontius M, Seifert M, et al. Problems in laboratory testing in primary care. J Am Med Assoc 1996; 275:635–9.10.1001/jama.1996.03530320059035Search in Google Scholar
72. Plebani M, Bonini P. In: EUROMEDLAB, 15th IFCC-FESCC European Congress of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Barcelona, 1–5 June 2003.Search in Google Scholar
73. Ricos C, Garcia-Victoria M, de la Fuente B. Quality indicators and specifications for the extra-analytical phases in clinical laboratory management. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:578–82.10.1515/CCLM.2004.100Search in Google Scholar PubMed
74. Plebani M. Towards quality specifications in extra-analytical phases of laboratory activity. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:576–7.10.1515/CCLM.2004.099Search in Google Scholar PubMed
75. Draft Federal Information Processing Standards Publication 183. Integration DEFinition for function modelling (idef). www.Idef.com/Downloads/pdf/idef0.pdf, 1993.Search in Google Scholar
76. Redmill F, Chudleigh M, Catmur J. System safety: HAZOP and software HAZOP. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1999:258pp.10.1007/978-1-4471-0823-8Search in Google Scholar
77. Schraagen JM, Chipman SF, Shalin VL. Cognitive task analysis. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000:531pp.10.4324/9781410605795Search in Google Scholar
78. Kazmierczak SC. Laboratory quality control: using patient data to assess analytical performance. Clin Chem Lab Med 2003; 41:617–27.10.1515/CCLM.2003.093Search in Google Scholar PubMed
79. Blumenthal D. The errors of our ways. Clin Chem 1997; 43:1305.10.1093/clinchem/43.8.1305Search in Google Scholar
80. Leape LL. Striving for perfection. Clin Chem 2002; 48:1871–2.10.1093/clinchem/48.11.1871Search in Google Scholar
©2006 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin New York
