Volume 6, Issue 1 - Special Issue: The Preanalytical Phase – A Field for Diagnostic Improvement / Issue Editor: Alexander von Meyer

Background The inappropriate use of laboratory resources, due to excessive number of tests not really necessary for patient care or by failure to order the appropriate diagnostic test, may lead to wrong, missed or delayed diagnosis, thus potentially jeopardizing patient safety. It is estimated that 5–95% of tests are currently used inappropriately, depending on the appropriateness criteria, thus significantly contributing to the potential of generating medical errors, the third leading cause of death in the US. Content In this review, we discuss the reasons as well as the medical and financial consequences of inappropriate utilization of laboratory tests. We then provide demand management (DM) tools as a means for overcoming this issue and also discuss their benefits, challenges, limitations and requirements for successful implementation. Summary and outlook When based on current evidence, adapted to local conditions and developed in close collaboration with clinicians, DM is a reasonable strategy for progressing toward better management of over- and underuse of laboratory resources.

The United States Choosing Wisely initiative was started in 2012 by the American Board of Internal Medicine Foundation and focused on reducing medical resource overutilization. Since its inception in the US, similar efforts have arisen in at least a dozen countries. Strongly patient-focused, and in fact started in collaboration with the consumer magazine Consumer Reports, the effort has resulted in a collection of greater than 500 recommendations from over 80 US professional societies intended to inform both patients and doctors about medical practices whose necessity should be questioned or discussed. Targets of recommendations include practices that lack a basis in scientific evidence, practices that may be duplicative of other care already received, practices that may be harmful and practices that are simply unnecessary. While critiques have been levied against the Choosing Wisely initiative over its intent, methods and efficacy, it is clear that many of its recommendations have been adopted by large medical practices, and several positive outcomes, i.e. reductions in perceived waste, have been reported in relation to many of the recommendations, including those specifically targeting laboratory tests. The future success of Choosing Wisely will likely hinge on whether or not significantly positive and durable outcomes can be demonstrated, especially at a time where there is increasing pressure to drive down costs in medical care while concomitantly increasing quality.

Several lines of evidence now confirm that the vast majority of errors in laboratory medicine occur in the extra-analytical phases of the total testing processing, especially in the preanalytical phase. Most importantly, the collection of unsuitable specimens for testing (either due to inappropriate volume or quality) is by far the most frequent source of all laboratory errors, thus calling for urgent strategies for improving blood sample quality and managing data potentially generated measuring unsuitable specimens. A comprehensive overview of scientific literature leads us to conclude that hemolyzed samples are the most frequent cause of specimen non-conformity in clinical laboratories (40–70%), followed by insufficient or inappropriate sample volume (10–20%), biological samples collected in the wrong container (5–15%) and undue clotting (5–10%). Less frequent causes of impaired sample quality include contamination by infusion fluids (i.e. most often saline or glucose solutions), cross-contamination of blood tubes additives, inappropriate sample storage conditions or repeated freezing-thawing cycles. Therefore, this article is aimed to summarize the current evidence about the most frequent types of unsuitable blood samples, along with tentative recommendations on how to prevent or manage these preanalytical non-conformities.

It has been well documented over recent years that the preanalytical phase is a leading contributor to errors in the total testing process (TTP). There has however been great progress made in recent years due to the exponential growth of working groups specialising in the field. Patient safety is clearly at the forefront of any healthcare system and any reduction in errors at any stage will improve patient safety. Venous blood collection is a key step in the TTP, and here we review the key errors that occur in venous phlebotomy process and summarise the evidence around their significance to patient safety. Recent studies have identified that patient identification and tube labelling are the steps that carry the highest risk with regard to patient safety. Other studies have shown that in 16.1% of cases, patient identification is incorrectly performed and that 56% of patient identification errors are due to poor labelling practice. We recommend that patient identification must be done using open questions and ideally three separate pieces of information. Labelling of the tube or linking the identity of the patient to the tube label electronically must be done in the presence of the patient whether it is before or after sampling. Combined this will minimise any chance of patient misidentification.

Transportation of blood samples is a major part of the preanalytical pathway and can be crucial in delaying laboratory results to the clinicians. A variety of aspects however makes sample transportation a complex, challenging and often overlooked task that needs thorough planning and dedicated resources. The purpose of this review is to outline the options available for this task and to emphasize the preanalytical aspects that need consideration in this process, e.g. performance specifications for sample transportation as stated in ISO standards 15189 and 20658, quality control of automated transportation systems, monitoring of sample integrity parameters and temperature surveillance in general and for external samplers in particular. All these are tasks that the laboratory must assure on a daily basis in terms of continuous quality control, and simultaneously the laboratory must remain alert to alterations in clinical demands (sample frequency, turn-around-times) and new regulations within this area (e.g. the recent General Data Protection Regulation from the EU).

Following an ordered clinical chemistry plasma/serum test, ideally the venous blood specimen is adequately collected at a health care facility, then swiftly transported to and readily handled, analyzed and sometimes interpreted at a clinical chemistry laboratory followed by a report of the test result to the ordering physician to finally handle the result. However, often there are practical as well as sample quality reasons for short- or long-term storage of samples before and after analysis. If there are specific storage needs, the preanalytical handling practices are specified in the laboratory’s specimen collection instructions for the ordered test analyte. Biobanking of specimens over a very long time prior to analysis includes an often neglected preanalytical challenge for preserved quality of the blood specimen and also involves administrative and additional practical handling aspects (specified in a standard operating procedure – SOP) when demands and considerations from academic, industry, research organizations and authorities are included. This short review highlights some preanalytical aspects of plasma/serum short- and long- term storage that must be considered by clinicians, laboratory staff as well as the researchers.

Background Dried blood spots (DBSs) could allow patients to prepare their own samples at home and send them to the laboratory for therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) of immunosuppressants. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of the current knowledge about the impact of DBS-related preanalytical factors on TDM of tacrolimus, sirolimus and everolimus. Content Blood spot volume, blood spot inhomogeneity, stability of analytes in DBS and hematocrit (Hct) effects are considered important DBS-related preanalytical factors. In addition, the influence of drying time has recently been identified as a noteworthy preanalytical factor. Tacrolimus is not significantly influenced by these factors. Sirolimus and everolimus are more prone to heat degradation and exhibited variations in recovery which were dependent on Hct and drying time. Summary and outlook DBS-related preanalytical factors can have a significant impact on TDM for immunosuppressants. Tacrolimus is not significantly influenced by the studied preanalytical factors and is a viable candidate for DBS sampling. For sirolimus and everolimus more validation of preanalytical factors is needed. In particular, drying conditions need to be examined further, as current protocols may mask Hct-dependent effects on recovery. Further validation is also necessary for home-based self-sampling of immunosuppressants as the sampling quality is variable.

Background Knowledge of possible drug-laboratory test interactions (DLTIs) is important for the interpretation of laboratory test results. Test results may be affected by physiological or analytical drug effects. Failure to recognize these interactions may lead to misinterpretation of test results, a delayed or erroneous diagnosis or unnecessary extra tests or therapy, which may harm patients. Content Thousands of interactions have been reported in the literature, but are often fragmentarily described and some papers even reported contradictory findings. How can healthcare professionals become aware of all these possible interactions in their individual patients? DLTI decision support applications could be a good solution. In a literature search, only four relevant studies have been found on DLTI decision support applications in clinical practice. These studies show a potential benefit of automated DLTI messages to physicians for the interpretation of laboratory test results. All physicians reported that part of the DLTI messages were useful. In one study, 74% of physicians even sometimes refrained from further additional examination. Summary and outlook Unrecognized DLTIs potentially cause diagnostic errors in a large number of patients. Therefore, efforts to avoid these errors, for example with a DLTI decision support application, could tremendously improve patient outcome.