Home Medicine Spanish Preanalytical Quality Monitoring Program (SEQC), an overview of 12 years’ experience
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Spanish Preanalytical Quality Monitoring Program (SEQC), an overview of 12 years’ experience

  • María Antonia Llopis EMAIL logo , Josep Miquel Bauça , Nuria Barba , Virtudes Álvarez , Montserrat Ventura , Mercè Ibarz , Rubén Gómez-Rioja , Itziar Marzana , Juan Jose Puente , Marta Segovia , Debora Martinez and María Jesús Alsina
Published/Copyright: September 22, 2016

Abstract

Background:

Preanalytical variables, such as sample collection, handling and transport, may affect patient results. Preanalytical phase quality monitoring should be established in order to minimize laboratory errors and improve patient safety.

Methods:

A retrospective study (2001–2013) of the results obtained through the Spanish Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Molecular Pathology (SEQC) External quality assessment (preanalytical phase) was performed to summarize data regarding the main factors affecting preanalytical phase quality. Our aim was to compare data from 2006 to 2013 with a previously published manuscript assessing the 2001–2005 period.

Results:

A significant decrease in rejection rates was observed both for blood and urine samples. For serum samples, the most frequent rejection causes in the first period were non-received samples (37.5%), hemolysis (29.3%) and clotted samples (14.4%). Conversely, in the second period, hemolysis was the main rejection cause (36.2%), followed by non-received samples (34.5%) and clotted samples (11.1%). For urine samples, the main rejection cause overall was a non-received sample (up to 86.1% of cases in the second period, and 81.6% in the first). For blood samples with anticoagulant, the number of rejections also decreased. While plasma-citrate-ESR still showed the highest percentages of rejections (0.980% vs. 1.473%, p<0.001), the lowest corresponded to whole-blood EDTA (0.296% vs. 0.381%, p<0.001).

Conclusions:

For the majority of sample types, a decrease in preanalytical errors was confirmed. Improvements in organization, implementation of standardized procedures in the preanalytical phase, and participation in a Spanish external quality assessment scheme may have notably contributed to error reduction in this phase.

Acknowledgments

Laboratories participating in SEQC Preanalytical Quality Monitoring Program.

  1. Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.

  2. Research funding: SEQC.

  3. Employment or leadership: None declared.

  4. Honorarium: None declared.

  5. Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.

References

1. Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F. Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2002;48:691–8.10.1093/clinchem/48.5.691Search in Google Scholar

2. Romero A, Muñoz M, Ramos JR, Campos A, Ramirez G. Identification of preanalytical mistakes in the stat section of the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2005;43:974–5.10.1515/CCLM.2005.168Search in Google Scholar PubMed

3. Plebani M. Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:750–9.10.1515/CCLM.2006.123Search in Google Scholar PubMed

4. Lippi G, Guidi GC, Mattiuzzi C, Plebani M. Preanalytical variability: the dark side of the moon in laboratory testing. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006;44:358–5.10.1515/CCLM.2006.073Search in Google Scholar PubMed

5. Plebani M, Carraro P. Mistakes in a stat laboratory: types and frequency. Clin Chem 1997;43:1348–51.10.1093/clinchem/43.8.1348Search in Google Scholar

6. Astion ML, Shojania KG, HamillTR, Kim S, Ng VL. Classifying laboratory incident reports to identify problems that jeopardeze patient safety. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;120:18–26.10.1309/8U5D0MA6MFH2FG19Search in Google Scholar

7. Howanitz PJ. Errors in laboratory medicine: practical lessons to improve patient safety. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2005;129:1252–61.10.5858/2005-129-1252-EILMPLSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Plebani M. Errors in laboratory medicine and patient safety: the road ahead. Clin Chem Lab Med 2007;45:700–7.10.1515/CCLM.2007.170Search in Google Scholar PubMed

9. Karcher DS, Lehman CM. Clinical consequences of specimen rejection: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Analysis of 78 Clinical Laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014;138:1009–14.10.5858/arpa.2013-0331-CPSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Jones BA, Callan RR, Howanitz PJ. Chemistry specimen acceptability. A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 703 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1995;119:203–8.Search in Google Scholar

11. Dale JC, Novis DA. Outpatient phlebotomy success and reasons for specimen rejections. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:416–9.10.5858/2002-126-0416-OPSARFSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

12. Howanitz PJ, Renner SW, Walsh MK. Continuous wristband monitoring over 2 years decreases identification errors: A College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks Study. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:809–15.10.5858/2002-126-0809-CWMOYDSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

13. Grimm E, Friedberg RC, Wilkinson DS, AuBuchon JP, Souers RJ, Lehman CM. Mislabeled samples and wrong blood in tube – a Q-probes analysis of 122 clinical laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2010;134:1108–15.10.5858/2009-0674-CP.1Search in Google Scholar PubMed

14. Nakhleh RE, Idowu MO, Souers RJ, Meier FA, Bekeris LG. Mislabeling of cases, specimens, blocks, and slides. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2011;135:969–74.10.5858/2010-0726-CPRSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

15. Aarsand AK, Villanger JH, Stole E, Deybach JC, Marsden J, To-Figueras J, et al. European specialist porphyria laboratories: diagnostic strategies, anlytical quality, clinical interpretation, and reporting as assessed by an external quality assurance program. Clim Chem 2011;57:1514–23.10.1373/clinchem.2011.170357Search in Google Scholar PubMed

16. Llopis MA, Trujillo G, Llovet MI, Tarrés E, Ibarz M, Biosca C, et al. Quality indicators and specifications for key analytical-extranalytical processes in the clinical laboratory. Five years’ experience using the Six Sigma concept. Clin Chem Lab Med 2011;49:463–70.10.1515/CCLM.2011.067Search in Google Scholar PubMed

17. Quality Assurance Scientific and Education Committee (QASEC) of the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA). The Key Incident Monitoring & Systems Management (KIMMS). Available at: http://dataentry.rcpaqap.com.au/kimms/. Accessed 4 Nov 2013.Search in Google Scholar

18. Kristensen GB, Aakre KM, Kristoffersen AH, Sandberg S. How to conduct external quality assessment schemes for the pre-analytical phase? Biochemia Medica 2014;24:114–22.10.11613/BM.2014.013Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

19. Shcolnik W, de Oliveira CA, de São José AS, de Oliveira Galoro CA, Plebani M, Burnett D. Brazilian laboratory indicators program. Clin Chem Lab Med 2012;50:1923–34.10.1515/cclm-2012-0357Search in Google Scholar PubMed

20. Alsina MJ, Álvarez V, Barba N, Bullich S, Cortés M, Escoda I, et al. Revisión de los resultados del Programa de Evaluación Externa de la Calidad Preanalítica. Orina reciente (resumen 2001–2005). Química Clínica 2006;26:325–31.Search in Google Scholar

21. Alsina MJ, Álvarez V, Barba N, Bullich S, Cortés M, Escoda I, et al. Preanalytical quality control program-an overview of results (2001–2005 summary). Clin Chem Lab Med 2008;46:849–54.10.1515/CCLM.2008.168Search in Google Scholar PubMed

22. 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;53:943–8.10.1515/cclm-2014-1124Search in Google Scholar PubMed

23. Holman JW, Mifflin TE, Felder RA, Demers LM. Evaluation of an automated preanalytical robotic workstation at two academic health centers. Clin Chem 2002;48:540–8.10.1093/clinchem/48.3.540Search in Google Scholar

24. Da Rin G. Pre-analytical workstations: a tool for reducing laboratory errors. Clin Chim Acta 2009;404:68–74.10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.024Search in Google Scholar PubMed

25. Dolci A, Panteghini M. Harmonization of automated hemolysis index assessment and use: is it possible? Clin Chim Acta 2014;432:38–43.10.1016/j.cca.2013.10.012Search in Google Scholar PubMed

26. Fernández P, Llopis MA, Perich C, Alsina MJ, Alvarez V, Biosca C, et al. Harmonization in hemolysis detection and prevention. A working group of the Catalonian Health Institute (ICS) experience. Clin Chem Med Lab 2014;52:1557–68.10.1515/cclm-2013-0935Search in Google Scholar PubMed

27. Gella FJ, Alsina MJ, Biosca C, Serrat N, Montesinos M, Ruiz J, et al. Multicenter evaluation of materials for the quality control of the serum indexes. Rev Lab Clin 2015;8:61–6.Search in Google Scholar

28. Cornes MP, Atherton J, Pourmahram G, Borthwick H, Kyle B, West J, et al. Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation. Ann Clin Biochem 2016;53:279–84.10.1177/0004563215599561Search in Google Scholar PubMed

29. Plebani M, Astion ML, Barth JH, Chen W, de Oliveira CA, Ibarz M, et al. Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:951–8.10.1515/cclm-2014-0142Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2016-5-1
Accepted: 2016-7-22
Published Online: 2016-9-22
Published in Print: 2017-3-1

©2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. The central role of external quality assurance in harmonisation and standardisation for laboratory medicine
  4. Review
  5. Fecal calprotectin in inflammatory bowel diseases: update and perspectives
  6. Mini Review
  7. Factor VIIa-antithrombin complex: a possible new biomarker for activated coagulation
  8. Opinion Papers
  9. Improving quality in the preanalytical phase through innovation, on behalf of the European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
  10. Metabolite profiling can change health-care delivery to obese patients with fatty liver disease: the search for biomarkers
  11. Genetics and Molecular Diagnostics
  12. Rapid screening for targeted genetic variants via high-resolution melting curve analysis
  13. Evaluation of the new cobas® HCV genotyping test based on real-time PCRs of three different HCV genome regions
  14. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  15. Harmonisation of serum dihydrotestosterone analysis: establishment of an external quality assurance program
  16. Spanish Preanalytical Quality Monitoring Program (SEQC), an overview of 12 years’ experience
  17. Peer groups splitting in Croatian EQA scheme: a trade-off between homogeneity and sample size number
  18. Prevalence of pseudonatremia in a clinical laboratory – role of the water content
  19. Retrospective validation of a β-trace protein interpretation algorithm for the diagnosis of cerebrospinal fluid leakage
  20. Economic evaluation of procalcitonin-guided antibiotic therapy in acute respiratory infections: a Chinese hospital system perspective
  21. Performance evaluation of ImmunoCAP® ISAC 112: a multi-site study
  22. Clinical autoantibody detection by microarray
  23. Cardiovascular Diseases
  24. Kinetics of troponin I in patients with myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery
  25. Infectious Diseases
  26. P35 and P22 Toxoplasma gondii antigens abbreviate regions to diagnose acquired toxoplasmosis during pregnancy: toward single-sample assays
  27. Letters to the Editor
  28. Deciphering a macro-troponin I complex; a case report
  29. Interference of laboratory disinfection with trichloro-isocyanuric acid on cardiac troponin I measurement using the Vitros immunoassay system
  30. Massive interference in free T4 and free T3 assays misleading clinical judgment
  31. In defense of aldosterone measurement by immunoassay: a broader perspective
  32. The prevalence of hemolysis – a survey using hemolysis index
  33. Detection of BRAFV600K mutant tumor-derived DNA in the pleural effusion from a patient with metastatic melanoma
  34. Evaluation of the accuracy of the Greiner Bio-One FC Mix Glucose tube
  35. Congress Abstracts
  36. 4th EFLM-BD European Conference on Preanalytical Phase Amsterdam (NL), 24–25 March 2017
Downloaded on 4.3.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2016-0382/html
Scroll to top button