Rejections of clinical chemistry specimens delays the availability of results, which may impact patient management. The study aims to measure sample rejection rate, identify reasons for sample rejection, evaluate the effect of a campaign to reduce rejection rates and discover which clinical units produced the most insufficient specimen.
The study measured specimen rejection rates and the contributions of different rejection reasons in calendar 2016 and April 2018–March 2019. The study undertook a 7-intervention campaign to reduce specimen rejection during the 2018–2019 intervention period. It compared rejections rates, number of months with rejection rates ≤1.2%, and distribution of rejection reasons between the two year-long intervals. The study also determined the origin for specimens rejected for the most common rejection reason during one month in the second period.
The overall rejection rate fell significantly from 1.4% in pre-intervention period to 1.2% in the intervention period. The number of months with rejection rates within the target range increased significantly from 2 in the post-intervention period to 6 in the intervention period. Insufficient, hemolysed, and ‘too-old’ specimen decreased significantly, however, insufficient specimen remained the most frequent rejection reason. In February 2019, one-third of all insufficient specimen came from neonatal units and 24% from the pediatric units.
Interventions decreased significantly both overall and monthly rejection rates above target levels. Insufficient, hemolysed, ‘too-old’ specimen, became significantly less frequent, however, insufficient specimen remained the most frequent rejection reason. Over a month, most insufficient specimen came from neonatal and pediatric sites.
Research funding: None declared.
Author contributions: All authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this manuscript and approved its submission.
Competing interests: Authors state no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval: This quality improvement study audited specimen rejection without interactions with specifically identified patients or their medical record; its ethical clearance was as a routine process monitoring function.
2. Zaini, G, Zaini, G. Physician satisfaction from laboratory services in Maternity and Children Hospital in Makkah. Int J Lab Med Res 2014;1:101. https://dx.doi.org/10.15344/ijlmr/2014/101.Search in Google Scholar
5. Shah, S, Saini, R, Singh, S, Aggarwal, O, Goel, A. Six sigma metrics and quality control in clinical laboratory. Int J Med Res Rev 2014;2:140–9. https://doi.org/10.17511/ijmrr.2014.i02.20.Search in Google Scholar
6. Stark, A, Jones, BA, Chapman, D, Well, K, Krajenta, R, Meier, FA, et al.. Clinical laboratory specimen rejection—association with the site of patient care and patients’ characteristics: findings from a single health care organization. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:588–92. https://doi.org/10.1043/1543-2165(2007)131[588:CLSRWT]2.0.CO;2.10.5858/2007-131-588-CLSRWTSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Zarbo, RJ, Jones, BA, Friedberg, RC, Valenstein, PN, Renner, SW, Schifman, RB, et al.. Q-tracks: a College of American Pathologists program of continuous laboratory monitoring and longitudinal performance tracking. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:1036–44. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-9985(2002)126<1036:QT>2.0.CO;2.10.5858/2002-126-1036-QTSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Chiku, C, Zolfo, M, Senkoro, M, Mabhala, M, Tweya, H, Musasa, P, et al.. Common causes of EID sample rejection in Zimbabwe and how to mitigate them. PLoS One 2019;14:e0210136. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0210136.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
9. World Health Organization. Laboratory quality management system: handbook. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2011.Search in Google Scholar
10. World Health Organization. Laboratory quality management system (LQMS) training toolkit. Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.Search in Google Scholar
11. Alsina, MJ, Álvarez, V, Barba, N, Bullich, S, Cortés, M, Escoda, I, et al.. Preanalytical quality control program–an overview of results (2001–2005 summary). Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:849–54. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2008.168.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Govender, K, Parboosing, R, Siyaca, N, Moodley, P. Dried blood spot specimen quality and validation of a new pre-analytical processing method for qualitative HIV-1 PCR, KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. Afr J Lab Med 2016;5:1–6. https://doi.org/10.4102/ajlm.v5i1.349.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
13. Jacobsz, LA, Zemlin, AE, Roos, MJ, Erasmus, RT. Chemistry and haematology sample rejection and clinical impact in a tertiary laboratory in Cape Town. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:2047–50. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2011.743.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
14. Karcher, DS, Lehman, CM. Clinical consequences of specimen rejection: a College of American Pathologists Q-probes analysis of 78 clinical laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014;138:1003–8. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2013-0331-cp.Search in Google Scholar
15. Rooper, L, Carter, J, Hargrove, J, Hoffmann, S, Riedel, S. Targeting rejection: analysis of specimen acceptability and rejection, and framework for identifying interventions in a single tertiary healthcare facility. J Clin Lab Anal 2017;31:e22060. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcla.22060.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Association of Public Health Laboratories. Best practice guidance: specimen and specimen-product storage and retention. 2016. Available from: https://www.aphl.org/aboutAPHL/publications/Documents/ID_Specimen_Storage_0216.pdf [Accessed on 27 Jan 2020].Search in Google Scholar
17. National Health Laboratory Services. Selection and monitoring of quality indicators for process indicators for process improvement of the quality management system. Johannesburg, South Africa: Q-Pulse; 2019.Search in Google Scholar
18. Romero, A, Muñoz, M, Ramos, JR, Campos, A, Ramírez, G. Identification of preanalytical mistakes in the stat section of the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005;43:974–5. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2005.168.Search in Google Scholar
19. Chawla, R, Goswami, B, Singh, B, Chawla, A, Gupta, VK, Mallika, V. Evaluating laboratory performance with quality indicators. Lab Med 2010;41:297–300. https://doi.org/10.1309/lms2cbxba6y0owmg.Search in Google Scholar
20. Kaushik, N, Khangulov, VS, O’Hara, M, Arnaout, R. Reduction in laboratory turnaround time decreases emergency room length of stay. Open Access Emerg Med 2018;10:37–45. https://doi.org/10.2147/oaem.s155988.Search in Google Scholar
21. Askeland, R, McGrane, S, Levitt, J, Dane, S, Greene, D, Vandeberg, J, et al.. Improving transfusion safety: implementation of a comprehensive computerized bar code–based tracking system for detecting and preventing errors. Transfusion 2008;48:1308–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2008.01668.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
22. Forest, SK, Shirazi, M, Wu-Gall, C, Stotler, BA. The impact of an electronic ordering system on blood bank specimen rejection rates. Am J Clin Pathol 2017;147:105–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcp/aqw204.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Goodnough, LT, Viele, M, Fontaine, MJ, Jurado, C, Stone, N, Quach, P, et al.. Implementation of a two‐specimen requirement for verification of ABO/Rh for blood transfusion. Transfusion 2009;49:1321–8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1537-2995.2009.02157.x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
24. O’Neill, E, Richardson-Weber, L, McCormack, G, Uhl, L, Haspel, RL. Strict adherence to a blood bank specimen labeling policy by all clinical laboratories significantly reduces the incidence of “wrong blood in tube”. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:164–8. https://doi.org/10.1309/AJCPOJA2JRVX0IWC.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
25. Seferian, EG, Jamal, S, Clark, K, Cirricione, M, Burnes-Bolton, L, Amin, M, et al.. A multidisciplinary, multifaceted improvement initiative to eliminate mislabelled laboratory specimens at a large tertiary care hospital. BMJ Qual Saf 2014;23:690–7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003005.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
26. Varey, A, Tinegate, H, Robertson, J, Watson, D, Iqbal, A. Factors predisposing to wrong blood in tube incidents: a year’s experience in the North East of England. Transfus Med 2013;23:321–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/tme.12050.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27. Wagar, EA, Tamashiro, L, Yasin, B, Hilborne, L, Bruckner, DA. Patient safety in the clinical laboratory: a longitudinal analysis of specimen identification errors. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2006;130:1662–8. https://doi.org/10.1043/1543-2165(2006)130[1662:PSITCL]2.0.CO;2.10.5858/2006-130-1662-PSITCLSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
28. Goswami, B, Singh, B, Chawla, R, Mallika, V. Evaluation of errors in a clinical laboratory: a one-year experience. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:63–6. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm.2010.006.Search in Google Scholar
The online version of this article offers supplementary material (https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2020-0827).
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston