Critical laboratory values in hemostasis: toward consensus

Contemporary tools for evaluation of hemostasis in neonates. Where are we and where are we headed?

The assessment of hemostatic disorders in neonates is crucial, but remains challenging for clinicians. Although the concept of developmental hemostasis is widely accepted among hemostasis specialists globally, it is probably under-recognized by clinicians and laboratory practitioners. In parallel with age-dependent hemostatic status maturation, comprehension of the differences between normal values is crucial for the accurate diagnosis of potential hemorrhagic and thrombotic disorders of the vulnerable neonatal population. This review outlines the basics of developmental hemostasis and the features of the available coagulation testing methods, with a focus on novel tools for evaluating the neonatal hemostatic profile. Common errors, issues, and pitfalls during the assessment of neonatal hemostasis are discussed, along with their impact on patient management. Current knowledge gaps and research areas are addressed. Further studying to improve our understanding of developmental hemostasis and its reflection on everyday clinical practice is warranted.

Computer-assisted diagnostics

Healthcare is at the edge of a profound renovation or collapse due to the rapid inflow of machine learning protocols and procedures able to optimize several processes. Clinical trials are key for the progress of science and the correct interpretation of data. Rickard et al., in this journal, report that data on misidentification rates in medical trials are scarce. In five trials involving more than 800 blood or histology specimens examined, data clarification forms (DCFs) were issued for 21% of instances, and 67% were related to sample identification. The authors suggest that a suitable number of de- recognized data points is critical. Moreover, a formalized process involving the specimen accession employed in routine care is key to mitigate recognition errors and their potential profound impact on clinical research and outcome. We fully agree with the authors and their report is highly relevant today that we face transformation in healthcare. We suggest that 3D barcoding may mitigate several issues on misidentification.

A Comparative Review of ICMR, WHO, and EMA Guidelines for Good Clinical Laboratory Practices

With the advancement of clinical research and the increased burden on laboratory services, there is an unmet need for guidelines regarding proper laboratory functioning and reliable data generation. Several organizations from all over the world have published guidelines for these clinical and research laboratories. Good Clinical Laboratory Practices (GCLP) are stepwise procedures aimed at strengthening the quality of test results produced by all clinical laboratories engaged in human sample analysis. In this article, we attempt a comparison of the GCLP guidelines recently issued by the Indian Council of Medical Research with the guidelines released by the World Health Organization and the European Medicines Agency. Also, we have included and discussed several suggestions that, if included, will lead to the strengthening of the laboratory practices used for both research and patient care for overall improvement in the Indian healthcare system.

Baseline assessment of staff perception of critical value practices in government hospitals in Kuwait

Background

Notification of laboratory-determined critical values is key for effective clinical decision making and is thus a consequential step in a patient’s health care and safety. This study presents an overview of staff reporting policies and procedures concerning critical values in Kuwaiti governmental hospitals.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study design was adopted. Study subjects were affiliated with laboratories from five government hospitals (four general and one sub-specialty hospital). All laboratory staff in every hospital were included. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 23) was used to analyse the collected data at a significance level of ≤ 0.05. Quantitative data analysis included univariate descriptive (means, medians, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) and bivariate (chi-squared, ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests) analyses. These analyses provided associations between participating hospitals and staff perceptions towards the policies and procedures surrounding critical values.

Results

559 questionnaires were returned, a total response of 30.5% after those of 79 phlebotomists were excluded (eligible sample size n = 1833). The notification of critical values differs between participated laboratories in delivering protocol and time duration. Linked protocols between laboratories did not exist regarding policies and guidelines for applying the same procedures for critical value notification. There are differences in critical value limits among the participating laboratories.

Conclusion

This study is the first to survey laboratory staff perceptions of critical value practices in Kuwaiti government hospitals. Enhancing critical value reporting and policy is crucial for improving patient safety and to develop high-quality health services. The findings of this study can help policy makers implement future intervention studies to enhance laboratory practices in the area of critical values and improve patient safety and the quality of government hospital systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08329-z.

Hemostasis critical values among Iranian clinical laboratories "National Survey of 157 Clinical Laboratories"

BACKGROUND

Immediate reporting of critical values or test results significantly outside the normal range has a growing role in the management of patients, especially in life-threatening conditions. Due to the lack of international consensus, diverse approaches are used for determination of thresholds, reporting, documentation, and follow-up. In this study, we assessed how Iranian laboratories manage critical values for hemostasis.

METHODS

We designed a standard questionnaire to assess different aspects of hemostasis critical values, including the number of coagulation tests with a defined critical value, critical values reporting, documentation, and follow-up policies. All results were self-reported and correctness of the data was not assessed by the authors.

RESULTS

A total of 166 (66.4%) out of 250 laboratories completed the questionnaire; most (52.4%) were private. About 97% of responding laboratories had a critical values policy. These were defined for 64.3% (n: 27) of all coagulation tests (n: 42) performed in Iranian laboratories. Activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), prothrombin time/international normalized ratio (PT/INR), platelet count, factor XI, and factor XIII assays had defined critical values among all laboratories performing these tests. Almost all laboratories reported critical values within 1 hour, after confirmation of the result on the same sample (70% of the laboratories) or a new one (13.4% of the laboratories). State and private laboratories had the same critical value reporting policy for in and outpatients, with laboratory technicians reporting critical results to nurses, for the most part.

CONCLUSION

Although critical value policy is widely used among Iranian laboratories, there is no consensus policy for the reporting of hemostasis critical values, or documentation, threshold determination, and follow-up processes. It is impossible to determine whether non-responding laboratories had any critical values reporting policy. Results thus are biased toward laboratories that did.

Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine: National recommendations for blood collection, processing, performance and reporting of results for coagulation screening assays prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, fibrinogen and D-dimer

A modern diagnostic laboratory offers wide spectrum of coagulation assays utilized in the diagnosis and management of patients with haemostatic disorders, preoperative screening and anticoagulation therapy monitoring. The recent survey conducted among Croatian medical biochemistry and transfusion laboratories showed the existence of different practice policies in particular phases of laboratory process during coagulation testing and highlighted areas that need improvement. Lack of assay standardization together with non-harmonized test results between different measurement methods, can potentially lead to incorrect decisions in patient’s treatment. Consequently, patient safety could be compromised. Therefore, recommended procedures related to preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical phases of prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, thrombin time, fibrinogen and D-dimer testing are provided in this review, aiming to help laboratories to generate accurate and reliable test results.

Practical recommendations for managing hemolyzed samples in clinical chemistry testing

We suggest here a pragmatic approach for managing results of clinical chemistry testing in hemolyzed samples collected from adults/older children, attempting to balance the need to produce quality laboratory data with clinical urgency of releasing test results. Automatic measurement of the hemolysis index (H-index) in serum or plasma is highly advisable, whilst low-quality assessment of this test remains less good than a visual inspection. Regarding its practical use, when the H-index value does not generate an analytically significant bias, results can be released, whilst when the value is associated with analyte variation in a range between analytically and clinically significant bias (i.e. variation does not exceed the reference change value [RCV]), results of hemolysis-sensitive tests can be released in association with a comment describing the direction in which data are potentially altered, suggesting the need to collect another sample. When the H-index is associated with analyte variation exceeding clinically significant bias (i.e. variation exceeds the RCV), results of hemolysis-sensitive tests should be suppressed and replaced with a comment that biased results cannot be released because the sample is preanalytically compromised and advising the recollection of another sample. If H-index values reach an even higher critical cut-off (i.e. H-index corresponding to a cell-free hemoglobin concentration ≥10 g/L), all laboratory data may be unreliable and should hence be suppressed and replaced with a comment that all data cannot be released because the sample is grossly hemolyzed, also suggesting the recollection of another sample. Due to inaccuracy and imprecision, the use of corrective formulas for adjusting data of hemolysis-sensitive tests is discouraged.

Promptly reporting of critical laboratory values in pediatrics: A work in progress

In the 21^st century, the determination of alert thresholds remains the most challenging and controversial issue in clinical pediatrics. Pre-analytical, analytical, and post-analytical matters will consolidate or undermine the fate of any laboratory process. Pre-analytical issues need to be cleared off before the laboratory physician can dispatch the result to the pediatrician in charge. Once it is cleared off, the classification of essential laboratory results is paramount. It is more than an academic exercise and may be subdivided in the order of priority we handle it to inform promptly and safely the primary physicians. Currently, we are applying new modes of making sure relevant information is transmitted without interrupting the standard workflow of the primary physicians in charge for the child, who eventually need a fast line of action for results that may be life-threatening.