Performance criteria and quality indicators for the post-analytical phase

Laura Sciacovelli 1 , Ada Aita 1 , Andrea Padoan 1 , Michela Pelloso 1 , Giorgia Antonelli 1 , Elisa Piva 1 , Maria Laura Chiozza 2 , and Mario Plebanihttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-0270-1711 1
  • 1 Department of Laboratory Medicine, University-Hospital of Padua, Italy
  • 2 Department of Quality and Accreditation, University-Hospital of Padua, Padua, Italy
Laura Sciacovelli, Ada Aita, Andrea Padoan, Michela Pelloso, Giorgia Antonelli, Elisa Piva, Maria Laura Chiozza and Mario PlebaniORCID iD: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0270-1711

Abstract

Background: Quality indicators (QIs) used as performance measurements are an effective tool in accurately estimating quality, identifying problems that may need to be addressed, and monitoring the processes over time. In Laboratory Medicine, QIs should cover all steps of the testing process, as error studies have confirmed that most errors occur in the pre- and post-analytical phase of testing. Aim of the present study is to provide preliminary results on QIs and related performance criteria in the post-analytical phase.

Methods: This work was conducted according to a previously described study design based on the voluntary participation of clinical laboratories in the project on QIs of the Working Group “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety” (WG-LEPS) of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC).

Results: Overall, data collected highlighted an improvement or stability in performances over time for all reported indicators thus demonstrating that the use of QIs is effective in the quality improvement strategy. Moreover, QIs data are an important source for defining the state-of-the-art concerning the error rate in the total testing process. The definition of performance specifications based on the state-of-the-art, as suggested by consensus documents, is a valuable benchmark point in evaluating the performance of each laboratory.

Conclusions: Laboratory tests play a relevant role in the monitoring and evaluation of the efficacy of patient outcome thus assisting clinicians in decision-making. Laboratory performance evaluation is therefore crucial to providing patients with safe, effective and efficient care.

  • 1.

    Kallner A, McQueen M, Heuck C. The Stockholm Consensus Conference on quality specifications in laboratory medicine, 25–26 April 1999. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 1999;59:475–6.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 2.

    Sandberg S, Fraser CG, Horvath AR, Jansen R, Jones G, Oosterhuis W, et al. Defining analytical performance specifications: Consensus Statement from the 1st Strategic Conference of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:833–5.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2002;48:691–8.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Plebani M. The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem 2010;47:101–10.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Plebani M, Carraro P. Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency. Clin Chem 1997;43:1348–513.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Carraro P, Plebani M. Errors in a stat laboratory: types and frequencies 10 years later. Clin Chem 2007;53:1338–42.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    UNI EN ISO 15189:2013. Medical laboratories – Requirements for quality and competence. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization, 2013.

  • 8.

    Institute of Medicine. To err is human: building a safer health system. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2000.

  • 9.

    Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. The IFCC Working Group on laboratory errors and patient safety. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:79–85.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    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.

  • 11.

    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.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Pelloso M, Chiozza ML. Performance criteria and quality indicators for the pre-analytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:943–8.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Valestein P. Laboratory turnaround time. Am J Clin Pathol 1196;105:676–88.

  • 14.

    Kilgore ML, Steindel SJ, Smith JA. Evaluating stat testing options in an academic health center: therapeutic turnaround time and staff satisfaction. Clin Chem 1998;44:1597–603.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 15.

    Hawkins RC. Laboratory turnaround time. Clin Biochem Rev 2007;28:179–1949.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    Piva E, Sciacovelli L, Laposata M, Plebani M. Assessment of critical values policies in Italian institutions: comparison with the US situation. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:461–8.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 17.

    Dighe AS, Sodeberg BI, Laposata M. Narrative interpretation for clinical laboratory interpretations. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:S123–8.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 18.

    Macmillian DH, Sodeberg BI, Laposata M. Regulations regarding reflexive testing and narrative interpretations in laboratory medicine. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:S129–32.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 19.

    Kratz A, Sodeberg BI. The generation of narrative interpretations in laboratory medicine. Am J Clin Pathol 2001;116:S133–40.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 20.

    Plebani M. Interpretative commenting: a tool for improving the laboratory-clinical interface. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:46–51.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 21.

    Lim EM, Sikaris KA, Gill J, Calleja J, Hickman PE, Beilby J, et al. Quality assessment of interpretative commenting in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem 2004;50:632–7.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 22.

    Laposata ME, Laposata M, Van Cott EM, Buchner DS, Kashalo MS, Dighe AS. Physician survey of a laboratory medicine interpretive service and evaluation of the influence of interpretations on laboratory test ordering. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:1424–7.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 23.

    Zarbo RJ, Nakhleh RE, Walsh M. Customer satisfaction in anatomic pathology: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 30656 physician surveys from 94 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:23–9.

  • 24.

    Westgard JO. Six sigma quality, design and control. Madison, WI: Westgard QC, 2006.

  • 25.

    Burnett D. A practical guide to ISO 15189 in Laboratory medicine. London: Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 2013.

  • 26.

    Fraser CG, Hylton Petersen P, Libeer J-C, Ricos C. Proposal for setting generally applicable quality goals solely based on biology. Ann Clin Biochem 1997;34:1–8.

  • 27.

    Ricos C, Garcia-Victoria M, de la Fuente B. Quality indicators and specifications for the extra-analytical phases in clinical laboratory management. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004;42:578–82.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 28.

    Novis DA, Walsh MK, Dale JC, Howanitz PJ. Continuous monitoring of stat and routine outlier turnaround times: two College of American Pathologists Q-Track monitors in 2941 hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2004;128:621–6.

  • 29.

    Steindel SJ, Novis DA. Using outlier event to monitor test turnaround time: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study in 496 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1999;123:607–14.

  • 30.

    Piva E, Pelloso M, Penello L, Plebani M. Laboratory critical values: automated notification supports effective clinical decision making. Clin Biochem 2014;47:1163–8.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 31.

    Piva E, Sciacovelli L, Zaninotto M, Laposata M, Plebani M. Evaluation of effectiveness of a computerized notification system for reporting critical values. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:432–41.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 32.

    Sikaris K. Performance criteria of the post-analytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;35:949–58.

Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Search