Patient safety and medical diagnosis of patients are mainly influenced by laboratory results. The present study aimed to evaluate the errors in the preanalytical phase of testing in a Clinical Chemistry diagnostic laboratory. A review was conducted at the Clinical Chemistry Laboratory of a hospital in Saudi Arabia from January 2019 to December 2020. Using the laboratory information system, the data of all canceled tests and requests were retrieved and evaluated for preanalytical errors. A total of 55,345 laboratory test requests and samples from different departments were evaluated for preanalytical errors. An overall rate of 12.1% (6705) was determined as preanalytical errors. The occurrence of these errors was found to be highest in the emergency department (21%). The leading preanalytical errors were nonreceived samples (3.7%) and hemolysis (3.5%). The annual preanalytical errors revealed an increasing rate in outpatient and inpatient departments, while a decreasing rate was observed in the emergency department. An increased rate of errors was also noted for the 2-year study period from 11.3% to 12.9%. The preanalytical phase has a significant impact on the quality of laboratory results. The rate of error in the study was high and the leading causes were nonreceived samples and hemolysis. An increased occurrence of hemolyzed samples in the outpatient department was noted. Enhanced educational efforts emphasizing specimen quality issues and training in sample collection among hospital staff must be carried out.

Background and Objectives: Monitoring laboratory performance continuously is crucial for recognizing errors and fostering further improvements in laboratory medicine. This study aimed to review the quality indicators (QIs) and describe the laboratory errors in the preanalytical phase of hematology testing in a clinical laboratory. Methods: All samples received in the Hematology Laboratory of the Maternity and Pediatric Hospital in Hail for 3 years were retrospectively reviewed and evaluated for preanalytical issues using a set of QIs. The rate of each QI was compared to the quality specifications cited in the literature. Results: A total of 95002 blood samples were collected for analysis in the hematology laboratory from January 2017 through December 2019. Overall, 8852 (9.3%) were considered to show preanalytical errors. The most common were “clotted specimen” (3.6%) and “samples not received” (3.5%). Based on the quality specifications, the preanalytical QIs were classified generally as low and medium level of performance. In contrast, the sigma-based performance level indicates acceptable performance on all the key processes. Further analysis of the study showed a decreasing rate of preanalytical errors from 11.6% to 6.5%. Conclusions: Preanalytical errors remain a challenge to hematology laboratories. The errors in this case were predominantly related to specimen collection procedures that compromised the specimen quality. Quality indicators are a valuable instrument in the preanalytical phase that allows an opportunity to improve and explore clinical laboratory process performance and progress. Continual monitoring and management of QI data are critical to ensure ongoing satisfactory performance and to enhance the quality in the preanalytical phase.

No abstract