Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation

Background Most errors in the clinical laboratory occur in the preanalytical phase. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices in UK clinical laboratories. Methods A survey was sent on behalf of the Association for Clinical Bi...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Annals of clinical biochemistry 2016-03, Vol.53 (2), p.279-284
Hauptverfasser: Cornes, Michael P, Atherton, Jennifer, Pourmahram, Ghazaleh, Borthwick, Hazel, Kyle, Betty, West, Jamie, Costelloe, Seán J
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 284
container_issue 2
container_start_page 279
container_title Annals of clinical biochemistry
container_volume 53
creator Cornes, Michael P
Atherton, Jennifer
Pourmahram, Ghazaleh
Borthwick, Hazel
Kyle, Betty
West, Jamie
Costelloe, Seán J
description Background Most errors in the clinical laboratory occur in the preanalytical phase. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices in UK clinical laboratories. Methods A survey was sent on behalf of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Preanalytical Working Group (ACB-WG-PA) to all heads of department of clinical laboratories in the UK. The survey captured data on the analytical platform and Laboratory Information Management System in use; which preanalytical errors were recorded and how they were classified and gauged interest in an external quality assurance scheme for preanalytical errors. Results Of the 157 laboratories asked to participate, responses were received from 104 (66.2%). Laboratory error rates were recorded per number of specimens, rather than per number of requests in 51% of respondents. Aside from serum indices for haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia, which were measured in 80% of laboratories, the most common errors recorded were booking-in errors (70.1%) and sample mislabelling (56.9%) in laboratories who record preanalytical errors. Of the laboratories surveyed, 95.9% expressed an interest in guidance on recording preanalytical error and 91.8% expressed interest in an external quality assurance scheme. Conclusions This survey observes a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical errors in the UK. Data indicate there is a lot of interest in improving preanalytical data collection. The ACB-WG-PA aims to produce guidance and support for laboratories to standardize preanalytical data collection and to help establish and validate an external quality assurance scheme for interlaboratory comparison.
doi_str_mv 10.1177/0004563215599561
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1767912721</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sage_id>10.1177_0004563215599561</sage_id><sourcerecordid>1767912721</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-fbee3b21511ae67a8f5d960642e6974653a11157092436a65d7721b622a56bae3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kL1PwzAQxS0EoqWwMyGPLAGfE9sNG0J8iSIWOjBFl_RSXKVxsZOh_z2OWhiQmE5P93tPeo-xcxBXAMZcCyEypVMJSuW50nDAxmDUNAEh4JCNh3cy_EfsJIRVlNIIccxGUkOusqkas49X19rOedsuObYL7mnjfDcoV_ONJ2yx2Xa2woaT984HblveYOk8RteWr2lhK9vSDe8-ic9feLBdj5117Sk7qrEJdLa_EzZ_uH-_e0pmb4_Pd7ezpEpN3iV1SZSWsQEAkjY4rdUi10JnknRuMq1SBABlRC6zVKNWC2MklFpKVLpESifscpe78e6rp9AVaxsqahpsyfWhAKNNDjKaIip2aOVdCJ7qYuPtGv22AFEMgxZ_B42Wi316X8auv4afBSOQ7ICASypWrvdxsfB_4DfxEHy8</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1767912721</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Cornes, Michael P ; Atherton, Jennifer ; Pourmahram, Ghazaleh ; Borthwick, Hazel ; Kyle, Betty ; West, Jamie ; Costelloe, Seán J</creator><creatorcontrib>Cornes, Michael P ; Atherton, Jennifer ; Pourmahram, Ghazaleh ; Borthwick, Hazel ; Kyle, Betty ; West, Jamie ; Costelloe, Seán J</creatorcontrib><description>Background Most errors in the clinical laboratory occur in the preanalytical phase. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices in UK clinical laboratories. Methods A survey was sent on behalf of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Preanalytical Working Group (ACB-WG-PA) to all heads of department of clinical laboratories in the UK. The survey captured data on the analytical platform and Laboratory Information Management System in use; which preanalytical errors were recorded and how they were classified and gauged interest in an external quality assurance scheme for preanalytical errors. Results Of the 157 laboratories asked to participate, responses were received from 104 (66.2%). Laboratory error rates were recorded per number of specimens, rather than per number of requests in 51% of respondents. Aside from serum indices for haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia, which were measured in 80% of laboratories, the most common errors recorded were booking-in errors (70.1%) and sample mislabelling (56.9%) in laboratories who record preanalytical errors. Of the laboratories surveyed, 95.9% expressed an interest in guidance on recording preanalytical error and 91.8% expressed interest in an external quality assurance scheme. Conclusions This survey observes a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical errors in the UK. Data indicate there is a lot of interest in improving preanalytical data collection. The ACB-WG-PA aims to produce guidance and support for laboratories to standardize preanalytical data collection and to help establish and validate an external quality assurance scheme for interlaboratory comparison.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0004-5632</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1758-1001</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/0004563215599561</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26195485</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>London, England: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Laboratories - standards ; Medical Errors ; Quality Indicators, Health Care ; United Kingdom</subject><ispartof>Annals of clinical biochemistry, 2016-03, Vol.53 (2), p.279-284</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2015</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2015.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-fbee3b21511ae67a8f5d960642e6974653a11157092436a65d7721b622a56bae3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-fbee3b21511ae67a8f5d960642e6974653a11157092436a65d7721b622a56bae3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0004563215599561$$EPDF$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0004563215599561$$EHTML$$P50$$Gsage$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,21798,27901,27902,43597,43598</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26195485$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cornes, Michael P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atherton, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pourmahram, Ghazaleh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borthwick, Hazel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kyle, Betty</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>West, Jamie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costelloe, Seán J</creatorcontrib><title>Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation</title><title>Annals of clinical biochemistry</title><addtitle>Ann Clin Biochem</addtitle><description>Background Most errors in the clinical laboratory occur in the preanalytical phase. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices in UK clinical laboratories. Methods A survey was sent on behalf of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Preanalytical Working Group (ACB-WG-PA) to all heads of department of clinical laboratories in the UK. The survey captured data on the analytical platform and Laboratory Information Management System in use; which preanalytical errors were recorded and how they were classified and gauged interest in an external quality assurance scheme for preanalytical errors. Results Of the 157 laboratories asked to participate, responses were received from 104 (66.2%). Laboratory error rates were recorded per number of specimens, rather than per number of requests in 51% of respondents. Aside from serum indices for haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia, which were measured in 80% of laboratories, the most common errors recorded were booking-in errors (70.1%) and sample mislabelling (56.9%) in laboratories who record preanalytical errors. Of the laboratories surveyed, 95.9% expressed an interest in guidance on recording preanalytical error and 91.8% expressed interest in an external quality assurance scheme. Conclusions This survey observes a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical errors in the UK. Data indicate there is a lot of interest in improving preanalytical data collection. The ACB-WG-PA aims to produce guidance and support for laboratories to standardize preanalytical data collection and to help establish and validate an external quality assurance scheme for interlaboratory comparison.</description><subject>Laboratories - standards</subject><subject>Medical Errors</subject><subject>Quality Indicators, Health Care</subject><subject>United Kingdom</subject><issn>0004-5632</issn><issn>1758-1001</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kL1PwzAQxS0EoqWwMyGPLAGfE9sNG0J8iSIWOjBFl_RSXKVxsZOh_z2OWhiQmE5P93tPeo-xcxBXAMZcCyEypVMJSuW50nDAxmDUNAEh4JCNh3cy_EfsJIRVlNIIccxGUkOusqkas49X19rOedsuObYL7mnjfDcoV_ONJ2yx2Xa2woaT984HblveYOk8RteWr2lhK9vSDe8-ic9feLBdj5117Sk7qrEJdLa_EzZ_uH-_e0pmb4_Pd7ezpEpN3iV1SZSWsQEAkjY4rdUi10JnknRuMq1SBABlRC6zVKNWC2MklFpKVLpESifscpe78e6rp9AVaxsqahpsyfWhAKNNDjKaIip2aOVdCJ7qYuPtGv22AFEMgxZ_B42Wi316X8auv4afBSOQ7ICASypWrvdxsfB_4DfxEHy8</recordid><startdate>201603</startdate><enddate>201603</enddate><creator>Cornes, Michael P</creator><creator>Atherton, Jennifer</creator><creator>Pourmahram, Ghazaleh</creator><creator>Borthwick, Hazel</creator><creator>Kyle, Betty</creator><creator>West, Jamie</creator><creator>Costelloe, Seán J</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201603</creationdate><title>Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation</title><author>Cornes, Michael P ; Atherton, Jennifer ; Pourmahram, Ghazaleh ; Borthwick, Hazel ; Kyle, Betty ; West, Jamie ; Costelloe, Seán J</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c379t-fbee3b21511ae67a8f5d960642e6974653a11157092436a65d7721b622a56bae3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Laboratories - standards</topic><topic>Medical Errors</topic><topic>Quality Indicators, Health Care</topic><topic>United Kingdom</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cornes, Michael P</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atherton, Jennifer</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pourmahram, Ghazaleh</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Borthwick, Hazel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kyle, Betty</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>West, Jamie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Costelloe, Seán J</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Annals of clinical biochemistry</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cornes, Michael P</au><au>Atherton, Jennifer</au><au>Pourmahram, Ghazaleh</au><au>Borthwick, Hazel</au><au>Kyle, Betty</au><au>West, Jamie</au><au>Costelloe, Seán J</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation</atitle><jtitle>Annals of clinical biochemistry</jtitle><addtitle>Ann Clin Biochem</addtitle><date>2016-03</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>53</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>279</spage><epage>284</epage><pages>279-284</pages><issn>0004-5632</issn><eissn>1758-1001</eissn><abstract>Background Most errors in the clinical laboratory occur in the preanalytical phase. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices in UK clinical laboratories. Methods A survey was sent on behalf of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Preanalytical Working Group (ACB-WG-PA) to all heads of department of clinical laboratories in the UK. The survey captured data on the analytical platform and Laboratory Information Management System in use; which preanalytical errors were recorded and how they were classified and gauged interest in an external quality assurance scheme for preanalytical errors. Results Of the 157 laboratories asked to participate, responses were received from 104 (66.2%). Laboratory error rates were recorded per number of specimens, rather than per number of requests in 51% of respondents. Aside from serum indices for haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia, which were measured in 80% of laboratories, the most common errors recorded were booking-in errors (70.1%) and sample mislabelling (56.9%) in laboratories who record preanalytical errors. Of the laboratories surveyed, 95.9% expressed an interest in guidance on recording preanalytical error and 91.8% expressed interest in an external quality assurance scheme. Conclusions This survey observes a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical errors in the UK. Data indicate there is a lot of interest in improving preanalytical data collection. The ACB-WG-PA aims to produce guidance and support for laboratories to standardize preanalytical data collection and to help establish and validate an external quality assurance scheme for interlaboratory comparison.</abstract><cop>London, England</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>26195485</pmid><doi>10.1177/0004563215599561</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0004-5632
ispartof Annals of clinical biochemistry, 2016-03, Vol.53 (2), p.279-284
issn 0004-5632
1758-1001
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1767912721
source MEDLINE; SAGE Complete
subjects Laboratories - standards
Medical Errors
Quality Indicators, Health Care
United Kingdom
title Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-09T09%3A17%3A36IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Monitoring%20and%20reporting%20of%20preanalytical%20errors%20in%20laboratory%20medicine:%20the%20UK%20situation&rft.jtitle=Annals%20of%20clinical%20biochemistry&rft.au=Cornes,%20Michael%20P&rft.date=2016-03&rft.volume=53&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=279&rft.epage=284&rft.pages=279-284&rft.issn=0004-5632&rft.eissn=1758-1001&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/0004563215599561&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1767912721%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1767912721&rft_id=info:pmid/26195485&rft_sage_id=10.1177_0004563215599561&rfr_iscdi=true