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 57, Issue 11

Issues

Impact of total automation consolidating first-line laboratory tests on diagnostic blood loss

Sara Pasqualetti
  • Corresponding author
  • Clinical Pathology Unit, ASST Fatebenefratelli-Sacco, Via GB Grassi 74, 20157 Milan, Italy, Phone: +39 02 39042683, Fax: +39 02 39042364
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
/ Elena Aloisio / Sarah Birindelli / Alberto Dolci / Mauro Panteghini
Published Online: 2019-05-30 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0133

Abstract

Background

Blood loss for laboratory testing may contribute to hospital-acquired anemia. When implementing the core laboratory (core-lab) section, we consolidated first-line tests decreasing the number of tubes previously dispatched to different sites. Here, hypothesized benefits of the amount of blood volume drawn were explored.

Methods

We retrieved, using a laboratory information system (LIS), the number of tubes received by laboratories interested in the change from all clinical wards in a year-based period, i.e. 2013 for pre-core-lab and 2015 for core-lab system, respectively. Data were expressed as the overall number of tubes sent to laboratories, the corresponding blood volume, and the number of laboratory tests performed, normalized for the number of inpatients.

Results

After consolidation, the average number of blood tubes per inpatient significantly decreased (12.6 vs. 10.7, p < 0.001). However, intensive care units (ICUs) did not reduce the number of tubes per patient, according to the needs of daily monitoring of their clinical status. The average blood volume sent to laboratories did not vary significantly because serum tubes for core-lab required higher volumes for testing up to 55 analytes in the same transaction. Finally, the number of requested tests per patient during the new osystem slightly decreased (−2.6%).

Conclusions

Total laboratory automation does not automatically mean reducing iatrogenic blood loss. The new system affected the procedure of blood drawing in clinical wards by significantly reducing the number of handled tubes, producing a benefit in terms of costs, labor and time consumption. Except in ICUs, this also slightly promoted some blood saving. ICUs which engage in phlebotomizing patients daily, did not take advantage from the test consolidation.

Keywords: diagnostic blood loss; hospital-acquired anemia; total laboratory automation

References

  • 1.

    McEvoy M, Shander A. Anemia, bleeding, and blood transfusion in the intensive care unit: causes, risks, costs, and new strategies. Am J Crit Care 2013;22:eS1–13.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 2.

    Walsh TS, Saleh EE. Anaemia during critical illness. Br J Anaesth 2006;97:278–91.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 3.

    Corwin HL, Gettinger A, Pearl RG, Fink MP, Levy MM, Abraham E, et al. The CRIT study: anemia and blood transfusion in the critically ill – current clinical practice in the United States. Crit Care Med 2004;32:39–52.PubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 4.

    Vamvakas EC, Blajchman MA. Transfusion-related mortality: the ongoing risks of allogeneic blood transfusion and the available strategies for their prevention. Blood 2009;113:3406–17.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 5.

    Shander A, Hofmann A, Ozawa S, Theusinger OM, Gombotz H, Spahn DR. Activity-based costs of blood transfusions in surgical patients at four hospitals. Transfusion 2010;50:753–65.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 6.

    Languasco A, Cazap N, Marciano S, Huber M, Novillo A, Poletta F, et al. Hemoglobin concentration variations over time in general medical inpatients. J Hosp Med 2010;5:283–8.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 7.

    Koch CG, Li L, Sun Z, Hixson ED, Tang A, Phillips SC, et al. Hospital-acquired anemia: prevalence, outcomes, and healthcare implications. J Hosp Med 2013;8:506–12.PubMedWeb of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 8.

    Aloisio E, Pasqualetti S, Dolci A, Panteghini M. Hospital-acquired anemia: the role of diagnostic blood loss. Biochim Clin 2017;41:208–15.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 9.

    Hayden SJ, Albert TJ, Watkins TR, Swenson ER. Anemia in critical illness: insights into etiology, consequences, and management. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2012;185:1049–57.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 10.

    Corwin HL, Parsonnet KC, Gettinger A. RBC transfusion in the ICU: is there a reason? Chest 1995;108:767–71.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 11.

    Chant C, Wilson G, Friedrich JO. Anemia, transfusion, and phlebotomy practices in critically ill patients with prolonged ICU length of stay: a cohort study. Crit Care 2006;10:R140.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 12.

    Thomas J, Jensen L, Nahirniak S, Gibney RT. Anemia and blood transfusion practices in the critically ill: a prospective cohort review. Heart Lung 2010;39:217–25.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 13.

    Salisbury AC, Reid KJ, Alexander KP, Masoudi FA, Lai SM, Chan PS, et al. Diagnostic blood loss from phlebotomy and hospital-acquired anemia during acute myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med 2011;171:1646–53.PubMedCrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 14.

    Salisbury AC, Alexander KP, Reid KJ, Masoudi FA, Rathore SS, Wang TY, et al. Incidence, correlates, and outcomes of acute, hospital-acquired anemia in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2010;3:337–46.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 15.

    Thavendiranathan P, Bagai A, Ebidia A, Detsky AS, Choudhry NK. Do blood tests cause anemia in hospitalized patients? The effect of diagnostic phlebotomy on hemoglobin and hematocrit levels. J Gen Intern Med 2005;20:520–4.CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 16.

    https://www.blood.gov.au/pbm-guidelines. Accessed January 2019.

  • 17.

    Eaton KP, Levy K, Soong C, Pahwa AK, Petrilli C, Ziemba JB, et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. J Am Med Assoc Intern Med 2017;177:1833–9.Google Scholar

  • 18.

    Ferraro S, Braga F, Panteghini M. Laboratory medicine in the new healthcare environment. Clin Chem Lab Med 2016;54:523–33.PubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 19.

    Ferraro S, Panteghini M. The role of laboratory in ensuring appropriate test requests. Clin Biochem 2017;50:555–61.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 20.

    Rubinstein M, Hirsch R, Bandyopadhyay K, Madison B, Taylor T, Ranne A, et al. Effectiveness of practices to support appropriate laboratory test utilization: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Pathol 2018;149:197–221.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 21.

    Fischer DP, Zacharowski KD, Meybohm P. Savoring every drop – vampire or mosquito? Crit Care 2014;18:306.CrossrefPubMedWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • 22.

    Stefanini M. Iatrogenic anemia (can it be prevented?). J Thromb Haemost 2014;12:1591.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 23.

    Patel K, Brown SM, Dietzen DJ. Listening closely when the volume is turned down challenges to small volume testing. Clinical Laboratory News, May 2016. Available at https://www.aacc.org/publications/cln/articles/2016/may/listening-closely-when-the-volume-is-turned-down. Accessed January 2019.

  • 24.

    Levi M. Twenty-five million liters of blood into the sewer. J Thromb Haemost 2014;12:1592.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 25.

    Dale JC, Ruby SG. Specimen collection volumes for laboratory tests. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:162–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 26.

    Dolci A, Giavarina D, Pasqualetti S, Szőke D, Panteghini M. Total laboratory automation: Do stat tests still matter? Clin Biochem 2017;50:605–11.Web of ScienceCrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 27.

    Ialongo C, Porzio O, Giambini I, Bernardini S. Total automation for the core laboratory: improving the turnaround time helps to reduce the volume of ordered STAT tests. J Lab Autom 2016;21:451–8.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 28.

    Lippi G, Panteghini M, Bernardini S, Bonfanti L, Carraro P, Casagranda I, et al. Laboratory testing in the emergency department: an Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) consensus report. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018;56:1655–9.Web of SciencePubMedCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 29.

    Pasqualetti S, Birindelli S, Aloisio E, Dolci A, Panteghini M. Clinical governance remains a priority in total laboratory automation era. JALM. 2019. DOI: 10.1373/jalm.2018.028035 [ahead of print].Google Scholar

  • 30.

    Ng VL. Utilization management in the core laboratory. Clin Chim Acta 2014;427:154–7.CrossrefWeb of SciencePubMedGoogle Scholar

  • 31.

    Vincent JL, Baron JF, Reinhart K, Gattinoni L, Thijs L, Webb A, et al. Anemia and blood transfusion in critically ill patients. J Am Med Assoc 2002;288:1499–507.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • 32.

    Jones RL, Sayles HR, Fey PD, Rupp ME. Effect of clinical variables on the volume of blood collected for blood cultures in an adult patient population. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2017;38:1493–7.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

About the article

Received: 2019-02-04

Accepted: 2019-05-01

Published Online: 2019-05-30

Published in Print: 2019-10-25


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.

Ethical approval: Not applicable.


Citation Information: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM), Volume 57, Issue 11, Pages 1721–1729, ISSN (Online) 1437-4331, ISSN (Print) 1434-6621, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2019-0133.

Export Citation

©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in