Abstract
Background: Laboratories today face increasing pressure to automate operations due to increasing workloads and the need to reduce expenditure. Few studies to date have focussed on the laboratory automation of preanalytical coagulation specimen processing. In the present study, we examined whether a clinical chemistry automation protocol meets the preanalytical requirements for the analyses of coagulation.
Methods: During the implementation of laboratory automation, we began to operate a pre- and postanalytical automation system. The preanalytical unit processes blood specimens for chemistry, immunology and coagulation by automated specimen processing. As the production of platelet-poor plasma is highly dependent on optimal centrifugation, we examined specimen handling under different centrifugation conditions in order to produce optimal platelet deficient plasma specimens. To this end, manually processed models centrifuged at 1500 g for 5 and 20 min were compared to an automated centrifugation model at 3000 g for 7 min.
Results: For analytical assays that are performed frequently enough to be targets for full automation, Passing-Bablok regression analysis showed close agreement between different centrifugation methods, with a correlation coefficient between 0.98 and 0.99 and a bias between –5% and +6%. For seldom performed assays that do not mandate full automation, the Passing-Bablok regression analysis showed acceptable to poor agreement between different centrifugation methods.
Conclusions: A full automation solution is suitable and can be recommended for frequent haemostasis testing.
References
1. Estey CA, Felder RA. Clinical evaluation of serial blood processing at point-of-care. Clin Chem 1997;43:360–2.10.1093/clinchem/43.2.360Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Roberts T, Smith M, Roberts B. Observations on centrifugation: application to centrifuge development. Clin Chem 1999;45: 1889–97.10.1093/clinchem/45.11.1889Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. Holaman JW, Mifelin TE, Felder RA, Demers LA. 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
4. Felder RA. Immunoassay automation. J Clin Ligand Assay Soc 1999;22:13–24.Search in Google Scholar
5. Felder RA, Kost GJ. Modular stepwise automation and the future of diagnostic testing. MLO Med Lab Obs 1998;30:46,48,56.Search in Google Scholar PubMed
6. Felder RA, Boyd JC, Margrey K, Holman W, Savory J. Robotics in the medical laboratory. Clin Chem 1990;36:1534–43.10.1093/clinchem/36.9.1534Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. Hawker CD, Garr SB, Hamilton LT, Penrose JR, Ashwood ER, Weiss RL. Automated transport and sorting system in a large reference laboratory: part 1. Evaluation of needs and alternatives and development of a plan. Clin Chem 2002;48: 1751–60.10.1093/clinchem/48.10.1751Search in Google Scholar
8. Hawker CD, Roberts WL, Garr SB, Hamilton LT, Penrose JR, Ashwood ER, et al. Automated transport and sorting system in a large reference laboratory: part 2. Implementation of the system and performance measures over three years. Clin Chem 2002;48:1761–7.10.1093/clinchem/48.10.1761Search in Google Scholar
9. Markin RS, Whalen SA. Laboratory automatisation: trajectory, technology, and tactics. Clin Chem 2000;46:764–71.10.1093/clinchem/46.5.764Search in Google Scholar
10. Middleton SR. Developing an automation concept that is right for your laboratory. Clin Chem 2000;46:757–63.10.1093/clinchem/46.5.757Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Rosetti MD, Kumar A, Felder RA. Mobile robot simulation of mid-sized hospital delivery processes. Health Care Manage Sci 2000;3:201–13.10.1023/A:1019049609350Search in Google Scholar
12. Plebani M. Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:750–9.10.1515/CCLM.2006.123Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Plebani M. Laboratory errors: how to improve pre- and post-analytical phases? Biochem Med 2007;17:5–9.10.11613/BM.2007.001Search in Google Scholar
14. Simundic AM, Nikolac N, Vukasovic I, Vrkic N. The prevalence of preanalytical errors in Croatian ISO 15189 accredited laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:1009–14.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000279341900016&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1515/CCLM.2010.221Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Rattan A, Lippi G. Frequency and type of preanalytical errors in a laboratory medicine department in India. Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:1657–9.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000261386100030&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar
16. 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;49:2047–50.10.1515/CCLM.2011.743Search in Google Scholar PubMed
17. Molenaar PJ, Leyte A. Pre-acquisition system assessment of the Sysmex®Coagulation System CS-2100i and comparison with end-user verification; a model for the regional introduction of new analysers and methods. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:1479–89.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000294841100014&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f310.1515/CCLM.2011.615Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Meyer MS, Guinet C. Laboratory assessment of new anticoagulants. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:761–72.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000289465700003&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar
19. Sølvik UØ, Røraas TH, Petersen PH, Stavelin AV, Monsen G, Sandberg S. Effect of coagulation factors on discrepancies in International Normalized Ratio results between instruments. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1611–20.http://gateway.webofknowledge.com/gateway/Gateway.cgi?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=PARTNER_APP&SrcAuth=LinksAMR&KeyUT=000309954500020&DestLinkType=FullRecord&DestApp=ALL_WOS&UsrCustomerID=b7bc2757938ac7a7a821505f8243d9f3Search in Google Scholar PubMed
20. https://www.beckmancoulter.com/wsrportal/wsr/diagnostics/clinical-products/automation/automate-800-and-600-sample-processing-systems/index.htm.Search in Google Scholar
21. Adcock DM, Hoefner DM, Kottke-Marchant K, Marlar RA, Szamosi DI, Warunek DJ. Collection, transport and processing of blood specimens for coagulation testing and general performance of coagulation assays. Approved Guideline, 5th ed. Vol. 23, No. 35. Wayne, PA: CLSI, 2008:H21–A5.Search in Google Scholar
22. Jones BA, Bekeris LG, Nakhleh RE, Walsh MK, Valenstein PN. Physician satisfaction with clinical laboratory services. A College of American Pathologist Q-probes study of 138 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2009;133:38–43.10.5858/133.1.38Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2013 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin Boston