Abstract
Background
Quality indicators (QIs) and risk management are important tools for a quality management system designed to reduce errors in a laboratory. This study aimed to show the effectiveness of QI-based risk management for the continual improvement of pre-analytical processes in the Kayseri Public Health Laboratory (KPHL) which serves family physicians and collects samples from peripheral sampling units.
Methods
QIs of pre-analytical process were used for risk assessment with the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) method. Percentages and risk priority numbers (RPNs) of QIs were quantified. QI percentages were compared to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) performance specifications and RPNs were compared to risk level scale, and corrective actions planned if needed. The effectiveness of risk treatment actions was re-evaluated with the new percentages and with RPNs of predefined QIs.
Results
RPNs related to four QIs required corrective action according to the risk evaluation scale. After risk treatment, the continual improvement was achieved for performance and risk level of “transcription errors”, for risk levels of “misidentified samples” and “not properly stored samples” and for the performance of “hemolyzed samples”. “Not properly stored samples” had the highest risk score because of sample storage and centrifugation problems of peripheral sampling units which are not under the responsibility of the KPHL.
Conclusions
Public health laboratories may have different risk priorities for pre-analytical process. Risk management based on predefined QIs can decrease the risk levels and increase QI performance as evidence-based examples for continual improvement of the pre-analytical process.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Plebani M. The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2010;47:101–10.10.1258/acb.2009.009222Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Simundic AM, Lippi G. Preanalytical phase – a continuous challenge for laboratory professionals. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2012;22:145–9.10.11613/BM.2012.017Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
3. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Marinova M, Marcuccitti J, Chiozza ML. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: a fundamental tool for quality and patient safety. Clin Biochem 2013;46:1170–4.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.11.028Search in Google Scholar PubMed
4. Barth JH. Clinical quality indicators in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49:9–16.10.1258/acb.2011.011126Search in Google Scholar PubMed
5. Lippi G, Guidi GC. Risk management in the preanalytical phase of laboratory testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:720–7.10.1515/CCLM.2007.167Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Remona Eliza D, Monodora D. Risk management in laboratory medicine: from theory to practice. Acta Med Marisiensis 2015;61:372–77.10.1515/amma-2015-0086Search in Google Scholar
7. Plebani M. Quality in laboratory medicine: 50 years on. Clin Biochem 2017;50:101–4.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2016.10.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
8. ISO 15189:2012. Medical laboratories – requirements for quality and competence. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
9. ISO Guide 73:2009. Risk management – Vocabulary. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
10. ISO/IEC Guide 51:2014. Safety aspects – guidelines for their inclusion in standards. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2014.Search in Google Scholar
11. ISO 31000:2018. Risk management – guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2018.Search in Google Scholar
12. IEC 31010:2009. Risk management – risk assessment techniques. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
13. ISO/TS 22367:2008. Medical laboratories – reduction of error through risk management and continual improvement. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2008.Search in Google Scholar
14. CLSI document EP23-A. Laboratory quality control based on risk management; approved guideline. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2012.Search in Google Scholar
15. CLSI document EP18-A2. Risk management techniques to identify and control laboratory error sources; approved guideline, 2nd ed. Wayne, PA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2009.Search in Google Scholar
16. Lu Y, Teng F, Zhou J, Wen A, Bi Y. Failure mode and effect analysis in blood transfusion: a proactive tool to reduce risks. Transfusion 2013;53:3080–7.10.1111/trf.12174Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Romero A, Gómez-Salgado J, Romero-Arana A, Ruiz-Frutos C. Utilization of a health care failure mode and effects analysis to identify error. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2018;28:020713.10.11613/BM.2018.020713Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
18. Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations. An introduction to FMEA. Using failure mode and effects analysis to meet JCAHO’s proactive risk assessment requirement. Failure Modes and Effect Analysis. Health Devices 2002;31:223–6.Search in Google Scholar
19. Ricos C, Biosca C, Ibarz M, Minchinela J, Llopis M, Perich C, et al. Quality indicators and specifications for strategic and support processes in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1189–94.10.1515/CCLM.2008.225Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. Llopis MA, Trujillo G, Llovet MI, Tarrés E, Ibarz M, Biosca C, et al. Quality indicators and specifications for key, analytical-extra analytical process in the clinical laboratory. Five years’ experience using the six sigma concept. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:463–70.10.1515/CCLM.2011.067Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Shcolnik W, de Oliveira CA, Sá de São José A, de Oliveira Galoro CA, Plebani M, Burnett D. Brazilian laboratory indicators program. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1923–34.10.1515/cclm-2012-0357Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Meier FA, Souers RJ, Howanitz PJ, Tworek JA, Perrotta PL, Nakhleh RE, et al. Seven Q-Tracks monitors of laboratory quality drive general performance improvement: experience from the College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks Program 1999–2011. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015;139:762–75.10.5858/arpa.2014-0090-CPSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Lippi G. Quality indicators for laboratory diagnostics: consensus is needed. Ann Clin Biochem 2011;48:479.10.1258/acb.2011.011088Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. The IFCC Working Group on laboratory errors and patient safety. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:79–85.10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.025Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Sciacovelli L, O’Kane M, Skaik YA, Caciagli P, Pellegrini C, Da Rin G, et al. IFCC WG-LEPS. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: from theory to practice. Preliminary data from the IFCC Working Group Project “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety”. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:835–44.Search in Google Scholar
26. Plebani M, Astion ML, Barth JH, Chen W, de Oliveira Galoro CA, Escuer MI, et al. Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:951–8.10.1515/cclm-2014-0142Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27. Sciacovelli L, Lippi G, Sumarac Z, West J, Garcia Del Pino Castro I, Furtado Vieira K, et al. Working Group “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety” of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). Quality Indicators in Laboratory Medicine: the status of the progress of IFCC Working Group “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety” project. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:348–57.10.1515/cclm-2016-0929Search in Google Scholar PubMed
28. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Working Group “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety, Model of Quality Indicators. Available at: http://www.ifcc-mqi.com/MqiWeb/resources/doc/Quality_Indicators_Key_Processes.pdf. Accessed: 5 Jan 2019.Search in Google Scholar
29. Plebani M, O’Kane M, Vermeersch P, Cadamuro J, Ooostherius H, Sciacovelli L, et al. The use of extra-analytical phase quality indicators by clinical laboratories: the results of an international survey. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:e315–7.10.1515/cclm-2016-0770Search in Google Scholar PubMed
30. Flegar Mestric Z, Perkov S, Radeljak A, Paro MM. Risk analysis of the preanalytical process based on quality indicators data. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:368–77.10.1515/cclm-2016-0235Search in Google Scholar PubMed
31. Badrick T, Gay S, Mackay M, Sikaris K. The key incident monitoring and management system – history and role in quality improvement. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:264–72.10.1515/cclm-2017-0219Search in Google Scholar PubMed
32. Zaninotto M, Tasinato A, Padoan A, Vecchiato G, Pinato A, Sciacovelli L, et al. Effects of sample transportation on commonly requested laboratory tests. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1755–60.10.1515/cclm-2012-0150Search in Google Scholar PubMed
33. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Montagnana M, Guidi GC. Preparation of a quality sample: effect of centrifugation time on stat clinical chemistry testing. Lab Med 2007;38:172–6.10.1309/D8TJCARUW575CXYHSearch in Google Scholar
34. Lippi G, Salvagno GL, Danese E, Lima-Oliveira G, Brocco G, Guidi GC. Inversion of lithium heparin gel tubes after centrifugation is a significant source of bias in clinical chemistry testing. Clin Chim Acta 2014;436:183.10.1016/j.cca.2014.05.028Search in Google Scholar PubMed
35. Lippi G, Banfi G, Churcha S, Cornesa M, De Carli G, Grankvist K, et al. Preanalytical quality improvement. In pursuit of harmony, on behalf of European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM Working group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE). Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:357–70.10.1515/cclm-2014-1051Search in Google Scholar PubMed
36. Giménez-Marín A, Rivas-Ruiz F, del Mar Pérez-Hidalgo M, Molina-Mendoza P. Pre-analytical errors management in the clinical laboratory: a five-year study. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2014;24:248–57.10.11613/BM.2014.027Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
37. 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
38. Lippi G, Blanckaert N, Bonini P, Green S, Kitchen S, Palicka V, et al. Haemolysis: an overview of the leading cause of unsuitable specimens in clinical laboratories. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:764–72.10.1515/CCLM.2008.170Search in Google Scholar PubMed
39. Romero A, Cobos A, Gómez J, Muñoz M. Role of training activities for the reduction of pre-analytical errors in laboratory samples from primary care. Clin Chim Acta 2012;413: 166–9.10.1016/j.cca.2011.09.017Search in Google Scholar PubMed
40. Simundic AM, Cornes M, Grankvist K, Lippi G, Nybo M, Kovalevskaya S, et al. Survey of national guidelines, education and training on phlebotomy in 28 European countries: an original report by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PA). Clin Chem Lab 2013;51:1585–93.10.1515/cclm-2013-0283Search in Google Scholar PubMed
41. Lippi G, Sciacovelli L, Simundic AM, Plebani M. Innovative software for recording preanalytical errors in accord with the IFCC quality indicators. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:e51–3.10.1515/cclm-2016-1138Search in Google Scholar PubMed
42. Aita A, Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. Extra-analytical quality indicators-where to now? Clin Chem Lab Med 2019;57:127–33.10.1515/cclm-2017-0964Search in Google Scholar PubMed
43. Potts HW, Anderson JE, Colligan L, Leach P, Davis S, Berman J. Assessing the validity of prospective hazard analysis methods: a comparison of two techniques. BMC Health Serv Res 2014;14:41.10.1186/1472-6963-14-41Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
44. Shebl NA, Franklin BD, Barber N. Failure mode and effects analysis outputs: are they valid? BMC Health Serv Res 2012;12:150.10.1186/1472-6963-12-150Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
45. Janssens PM. Practical, transparent prospective risk analysis for the clinical laboratory. Ann Clin Biochem 2014;51:695–704.10.1177/0004563214521160Search in Google Scholar PubMed
46. Plebani M. Quality in laboratory medicine: an unfinished journey. J Lab Precis Med 2017;2:63.10.21037/jlpm.2017.08.04Search in Google Scholar
47. Lippi G, Plebani M. A Six-Sigma approach for comparing diagnostic errors in healthcare – where does laboratory medicine stand? Ann Transl Med 2018;6:180.10.21037/atm.2018.04.02Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
48. Aita A, Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. Laboratory-related errors: you cannot manage what you don’t measure. You manage what you know and measure. Diagnosis (Berl) 2017;4:193–5.10.1515/dx-2017-0038Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
