Evaluation of Laboratory Performance in Consideration with Pre analytical and Post analytical Quality Indicators

Implementation of Quality indicators (QIs) plays an imperative role in improving the total testing process, as it provides a quantitative basis for evaluating the laboratory performance. Besides monitoring of analytical quality specifications, several lines of experimental and clinical evidence have alluded a pivotal role of extra-analytical phases in improving the quality of laboratory services and therefore a relevance of pre- and post-analytical steps have been speculated on the overall quality in the total testing process and consequently on clinical decision-making. This was a retrospective study designed to evaluate and review different extra-analytical quality indicators in NABL accredited clinical biochemistry laboratory at BJ Medical College and Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat in an endeavour to ameliorate the performance of the laboratory. All Clinical Chemistry Laboratory test requests with their respective samples from January 2018 to December 2021 were included in the study. A total of 1,439,011samples were processed, and were evaluated for seven QIs [(% of number of suitable samples not received; QI-8), (% of number of samples received in inappropriate container; QI-9), (% of number of samples hemolysed; QI-10), (% of number of samples with inadequate sample volume; QI 12) (% of number of samples received mismatched; QI 15), (% of number of samples reported after turnaround time; QI 21) and (% of number of samples with critical values informed; QI 22)] based on defined criteria of Quality Specification given by International Federation of Clinical Chemistry. Total number of preanalytical errors was 53,669 (3.72%). Among the preanalytical errors, inadequate sample volume (2.37% of total samples; 63.49% of total pre-analytical errors) was the most common anomaly followed by Not received samples (24.18%) hemolysis (8.26%) mismatched (3.91%) and 0.14% samples were received in Inappropriate container; manifesting that the error frequency was unacceptable for QI 21 and QI 8, acceptable for QI 10, minimally acceptable for QI 15 and optimum for QI QI 9. Furthermore, there was year-wise progressive decline in error rate of inadequate sample volume, hemolysed sample received and mismatched samples. Total number of post analytical errors were 19,002 (1.32%). TAT outlier and critical values communicated were the two QIs evaluated for this phase and results of both QI were within acceptable limits. Quality indicators serve as a tool to monitor process