Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation

Online

249,00 € / $374.00*

* Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.
Publication Date:
October 2011
ISSN:
1437-4331
DOI:
10.1515/CCLM.2011.743

See all formats and pricing

Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 249.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 374.00 *
Print
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 1577.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 2365.00 *
Print + Online
Individual Subscription Online only
Euro [D] 1893.00
RRP for USA, Canada, Mexico
US$ 2838.00 *
*Prices subject to change. Shipping costs will be added if applicable.

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Editorial Board Member: Lippi, Giuseppe / Gillery, Philippe / Kazmierczak, Steven / Lackner, Karl J. / Melichar, Bohuslav / Siest, Gérard / Whitfield, John B. / Abi Fadel, Marianne / Alvarez Menendez, Francisco V. / Azzazy, Hassan M.E. / Diamandis, Eleftherios P. / Eckardstein, Arnold / Favaloro, Emmanuel J. / Griesmacher, Andrea / Herrmann, Wolfgang / Hoffmann, Johannes J.M.L. / Hooijkaas, Herbert / Ichihara, Kiyoshi / Kaabachi, Naziha / Kim, Jeong-Ho / Korte, Wolfgang / Kroupis, Christos / Lai, Leslie Charles / Lam, Wai Kei Christopher / Marc, Janja / Miyoshi, Eiji / Özben, Tomris / Palicka, Vladimir / Panteghini, Mauro / Queralto, Jose M. / Scartezini, Marileia / Simundic, Ana-Maria / Tsongalis, Gregory J. / Wallemacq, Pierre E. / Yan, Shengkai / Young, Ian S. / Chiu, Rossa Wai Kwun / Ghosh, Debabrata / Kappelmayer, Janos / Lehmann, Sylvain / Sypniewska, Grazyna

12 Issues per year

Increased IMPACT FACTOR 2011: 2.150
Rank 10 out of 32 in category Medical Laboratory Technology in the 2011 Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Report/Science Edition

VolumeIssuePage

Issues

Chemistry and haematology sample rejection and clinical impact in a tertiary laboratory in Cape Town

1 / Annalise E. Zemlin2 / Mark J. Roos3, / Rajiv T. Erasmus2

1Division of Clinical Pathology, National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS), Tygerberg Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa

2Division of Chemical Pathology, National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS), Tygerberg Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa

3Division of Haematological Pathology, National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS), Tygerberg Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, Cape Town, South Africa

Deceased.

Corresponding author: Lourens A. Jacobsz, MBChB, Division of Clinical Pathology, National Health Laboratory Service (NHLS), Tygerberg Hospital, University of Stellenbosch, PO Box 19113, Tygerberg 7505, Parow, South Africa Phone: +27-21-9384009, Fax: +27-21-9384640

Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Volume 49, Issue 12, Pages 2047–2050, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2011.743, October 2011

Publication History:
Received:
2011-07-15
Accepted:
2011-09-17
Published Online:
2011-10-14

Abstract

Background: Recent publications report that up to 70% of total laboratory errors occur in the pre-analytical phase. Identification of specific problems highlights pre-analytic processes susceptible to errors. The rejection of unsuitable samples can lead to delayed turnaround time and affect patient care.

Methods: A retrospective audit was conducted investigating the rejection rate of routine blood specimens received at chemistry and haematology laboratories over a 2-week period. The reasons for rejection and potential clinical impact of these rejections were investigated. Thirty patient files were randomly selected and examined to assess the impact of these rejections on clinical care.

Results: A total of 32,910 specimens were received during the study period, of which 481 were rejected, giving a rejection rate of 1.46%. The main reasons for rejection were inappropriate clotting (30%) and inadequate sample volume (22%). Only 51.7% of rejected samples were repeated and the average time for a repeat sample to reach the laboratory was about 5 days (121 h). Of the repeated samples, 5.1% had results within critical values. Examination of patient folders showed that in 40% of cases the rejection of samples had an impact on patient care.

Conclusions: The evaluation of pre-analytical processes in the laboratory, with regard to sample rejection, allowed one to identify problem areas where improvement is necessary. Rejected samples due to factors out of the laboratory’s control had a definite impact on patient care and can thus affect customer satisfaction. Clinicians should be aware of these factors to prevent such rejections.

Keywords: audit; patient care; pre-analytical errors; rejection rate; turnaround time

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.