Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)

Published in Association with the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)

Editor-in-Chief: Plebani, Mario

Ed. by Gillery, Philippe / Greaves, Ronda / Lackner, Karl J. / Lippi, Giuseppe / Melichar, Bohuslav / Payne, Deborah A. / Schlattmann, Peter


IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 3.638

CiteScore 2018: 2.44

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 1.191
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 1.205

Online
ISSN
1437-4331
See all formats and pricing
More options …
Volume 49, Issue 7

Issues

Closing the brain-to-brain loop in laboratory testing

Mario Plebani / Giuseppe Lippi
  • Dipartimento di Patologia e Medicina di Laboratorio, Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria di Parma, Parma, Italy
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2011-06-13 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.617

Abstract

The delivery of laboratory services has been described 40 years ago and defined with the foremost concept of “brain-to-brain turnaround time loop”. This concept consists of several processes, including the final step which is the action undertaken on the patient based on laboratory information. Unfortunately, the need for systematic feedback to improve the value of laboratory services has been poorly understood and, even more risky, poorly applied in daily laboratory practice. Currently, major problems arise from the unavailability of consensually accepted quality specifications for the extra-analytical phase of laboratory testing. This, in turn, does not allow clinical laboratories to calculate a budget for the “patient-related total error”. The definition and use of the term “total error” refers only to the analytical phase, and should be better defined as “total analytical error” to avoid any confusion and misinterpretation. According to the hierarchical approach to classify strategies to set analytical quality specifications, the “assessment of the effect of analytical performance on specific clinical decision-making” is comprehensively at the top and therefore should be applied as much as possible to address analytical efforts towards effective goals. In addition, an increasing number of laboratories worldwide are adopting risk management strategies such as FMEA, FRACAS, LEAN and Six Sigma since these techniques allow the identification of the most critical steps in the total testing process, and to reduce the patient-related risk of error. As a matter of fact, an increasing number of laboratory professionals recognize the importance of understanding and monitoring any step in the total testing process, including the appropriateness of the test request as well as the appropriate interpretation and utilization of test results.

Keywords: brain-to-brain loop; clinical risk management; extra-analytical indicators; patient safety; quality specifications; total error

About the article

Corresponding author: Prof. Mario Plebani, Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital of Padova, Via Giustiniani 2, 35128 Padova, Italy Phone: +390498212792, Fax: +39049663240


Received: 2011-03-08

Accepted: 2011-03-08

Published Online: 2011-06-13

Published in Print: 2011-07-01


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Volume 49, Issue 7, Pages 1131–1133, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/CCLM.2011.617.

Export Citation

©2011 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston.Get Permission

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
Giuseppe Lippi and Mario Plebani
LaboratoriumsMedizin, 2018, Volume 0, Number 0
[2]
Maria Salinas, Maite López-Garrigós, Emilio Flores, and Carlos Leiva-Salinas
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry: International Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2018, Volume 55, Number 2, Page 281
[3]
G. Lippi, P. Avanzini, M. Cosmai, R. Aloe, and D. Ernst
British Journal of Biomedical Science, 2012, Volume 69, Number 2, Page 67
[4]
Silvia F. Benozzi, Gisela Unger, Amparo Campion, and Graciela L. Pennacchiotti
Biochemia Medica, 2018, Volume 28, Number 1
[5]
Stephen Wootton, Kesta Durkin, and Alan Jackson
Food and Nutrition Bulletin, 2014, Volume 35, Number 2_suppl1, Page S79
[6]
Arielle M. Fisher, Julia Driessen, Adamson Muula, Lia G. Petrose, Henry Limula, Gerald P. Douglas, Martha A. Terry, and Marlen S. Chawani
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, 2016, Volume 94, Number 6, Page 1426
[7]
Giuseppe Lippi and Mario Plebani
Journal of Laboratory Automation, 2013, Volume 18, Number 2, Page 184
[8]
Julia Driessen, Henry Limula, Oliver J. Gadabu, Gervase Gamadzi, Edwin Chitandale, Anne Ben-Smith, Noor Alide, and Gerald P. Douglas
African Journal of Laboratory Medicine, 2015, Volume 4, Number 1
[9]
Mario Plebani and Mauro Panteghini
Clinica Chimica Acta, 2014, Volume 432, Page 15
[10]
Nada Majkić-Singh and Zorica Šumarac
Journal of Medical Biochemistry, 2012, Volume 31, Number 3
[11]
Laura Sciacovelli, Oswald Sonntag, Andrea Padoan, Carlo Federico Zambon, Paolo Carraro, and Mario Plebani
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2012, Volume 50, Number 3
[12]
G. Lippi, E. J Favaloro, and M. Plebani
International Journal of Clinical Practice, 2011, Volume 65, Number 12, Page 1221

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in