Abstract:The knowledge of error rates is essential in all clinical laboratories as it enables them to accurately identify their risk level, and compare it with those of other laboratories in order to evaluate their performance in relation to the State-of-the-Art (i.e. benchmarking) and define priorities for improvement actions. Although no activity is risk free, it is widely accepted that the risk of error is minimized by the use of Quality Indicators (QIs) managed as a part of laboratory improvement strategy and proven to be suitable monitoring and improvement tools. The purpose of QIs is to keep the error risk at a level that minimizes the likelihood of patients. However, identifying a suitable State-of-the-Art is challenging, because it calls for the knowledge of error rates measured in a variety of laboratories throughout world that differ in their organization and management, context, and the population they serve. Moreover, it also depends on the choice of the events to keep under control and the individual procedure for measurement. Although many laboratory professionals believe that the systemic use of QIs in Laboratory Medicine may be effective in decreasing errors occurring throughout the total testing process (TTP), to improve patient safety as well as to satisfy the requirements of International Standard ISO 15189, they find it difficult to maintain standardized and systematic data collection, and to promote continued high level of interest, commitment and dedication in the entire staff. Although many laboratories worldwide express a willingness to participate to the Model of QIs (MQI) project of IFCC Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety", few systematically enter/record their own results and/or use a number of QIs designed to cover all phases of the TTP. Many laboratories justify their inadequate participation in data collection of QIs by claiming that the number of QIs included in the MQI is excessive. However, an analysis of results suggests that QIs need to be split into further measurements. As the International Standard on Laboratory Accreditation and approved guidelines do not specify the appropriate number of QIs to be used in the laboratory, and the MQI project does not compel laboratories to use all the QIs proposed, it appears appropriate to include in the MQI all the indicators of apparent utility in monitoring critical activities. The individual laboratory should also be able to decide how many and which QIs can be adopted. In conclusion, the MQI project is proving to be an important tool that, besides providing the TTP error rate and spreading the importance of the use of QIs in enhancing patient safety, highlights critical aspects compromising the widespread and appropriate use of QIs.

Background: An observational study was conducted in 12 European countries by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (EFLM WG-PRE) to assess the level of compliance with the CLSI H3-A6 guidelines.

Quality indicators (QIs) are fundamental tools for enabling users to quantify the quality of all operational processes by comparing it against a defined criterion. QIs data should be collected over time to identify, correct, and continuously monitor defects and improve performance and patient safety by identifying and implementing effective interventions. According to the international standard for medical laboratories accreditation, the laboratory shall establish and periodically review QIs to monitor and evaluate performance throughout critical aspects of pre-, intra-, and post-analytical processes. However, while some interesting programs on indicators in the total testing process have been developed in some countries, there is no consensus for the production of joint recommendations focusing on the adoption of universal QIs and common terminology in the total testing process. A preliminary agreement has been achieved in a Consensus Conference organized in Padua in 2013, after revising the model of quality indicators (MQI) developed by the Working Group on "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The consensually accepted list of QIs, which takes into consideration both their importance and applicability, should be tested by all potentially interested clinical laboratories to identify further steps in the harmonization project.

This document provides a joint recommendation for venous blood sampling of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) and Latin American Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE-LATAM) of the Latin America Confederation of Clinical Biochemistry (COLABIOCLI). It offers guidance on the requirements for ensuring that blood collection is a safe and patient-centered procedure and provides practical guidance on how to successfully overcome potential barriers and obstacles to its widespread implementation. The target audience for this recommendation are healthcare staff members directly involved in blood collection. This recommendation applies to the use of a closed blood collection system and does not provide guidance for the blood collection with an open needle and syringe and catheter collections. Moreover, this document neither addresses patient consent, test ordering, sample handling and transport nor collection from children and unconscious patients. The recommended procedure is based on the best available evidence. Each step was graded using a system that scores the quality of the evidence and the strength of the recommendation. The process of grading was done at several face-to-face meetings involving the same mixture of stakeholders stated previously. The main parts of this recommendation are: 1) Pre-sampling procedures, 2) Sampling procedure, 3) Post-sampling procedures and 4) Implementation. A first draft of the recommendation was circulated to EFLM members for public consultation. WG-PRE-LATAM was also invited to comment the document. A revised version has been sent for voting on to all EFLM and COLABIOCLI members and has been officially endorsed by 33/40 EFLM and 21/21 COLABIOCLI members. We encourage professionals throughout Europe and Latin America to adopt and implement this recommendation to improve the quality of blood collection practices and increase patient and workers safety.

No abstract