Quality in laboratory medicine and the Journal: walking together

Quality in laboratory medicine is defined as "an unfinished journey", as the more essential the laboratory information provided, the more assured its quality should be. In the past decades, the Journal Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine has provided a valuable forum for garnering new insights into the analytical and extra-analytical phases of the testing cycle, and for debating crucial aspects of quality in clinical laboratories. The impressive number of papers published in the Journal is testimony to the efforts made by laboratory professionals, national and international scientific societies and federations in the quest to continuously improve upon the pre-, intra- and post-analytical steps of the testing cycle, thus enhancing the quality of laboratory information. The paper appearing in this special issue summarizes the most important and interesting contributions published in the Journal, thus updating our knowledge on quality in laboratory medicine and offering further stimuli to identify the most valuable measures of quality in clinical laboratories.

Impact of managing affected results in haemolysed samples of an infant-maternity hospital using an unconventional approach

BACKGROUND

The management of affected results in haemolysed samples (HS) is debated. In an infant-maternity setting, for reporting interfered test results, we provided the result itself, the degree of haemolysis (as free haemoglobin concentration), and a warning recommending sample recollection. We investigated the impact of this approach on sample quality and clinicians' decision-making.

METHODS

Free haemoglobin was measured on Beckman Coulter AU680 as haemolytic index. We estimated the total HS number, the clinical wards more affected by HS, the most interfered analytes, and the retesting rate of interfered tests, by comparing data from Apr-Dec 2017, the period just after the introduction of the new policy, vs. Apr-Dec 2018.

RESULTS

One year after the new report introduction, a significant HS decrease (5.8% vs. 7.8%, P < 0.001) was detected, together with a reduction of the frequency by which haemolysis affected results. The most affected wards, i.e., Paediatric and Neonatal Intensive Care Units, showed an improvement in sample quality (HS rate, 30.6% to 16.1%, P < 0.001, and 25.2% to 20.9%, P = 0.048, respectively). We noted a significant decrease in retesting after an alerted result for aspartate aminotransferase, magnesium, potassium, conjugated bilirubin, and lactate dehydrogenase.

CONCLUSIONS

Our approach led to a HS decrease, suggesting that the provided report could be a driving force for improvement of phlebotomy quality, also helping clinicians in deciding if retesting is essential or not.

Integrating quality control and external quality assurance

Effective management of clinical laboratories relies upon an understanding of Quality Control and External Quality Assurance principles. These processes, when applied effectively, reduce patient risk and drive quality improvement. In this Review, we will describe the purpose of QC and EQA and their role in identifying analytical and process error. The two concepts are linked, and we will illustrate that linkage. Some EQA providers offer far more than analytical surveillance. They facilitate training and education and extend quality improvement and identify areas where there is potential for patient harm into the pre-and post-analytical phases of the total testing process.

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.