Continual improvement of the pre-analytical process in a public health laboratory with quality indicators-based risk management

Application of the FMEA Method in Improving the Quality Management of Emergency Complete Blood Count Testing

OBJECTIVE

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was used to identify factors that contribute to quality management deficiencies in laboratory testing of emergency complete blood count (CBC).

METHODS

Improvements included instrument updates, personnel training, and laboratory information system optimization. We used operational data from January 2021 (control group) and January 2022 (FMEA group) to compare the risk priority number (RPN) of FMEA, emergency CBC laboratory turnaround time (TAT), error report rate, and specimen failure rate.

RESULTS

After the implementation of FMEA, the average RPN dropped from 36.24 ± 9.68 to 9.45 ± 2.25, (t = 20.89, P < .05). Additionally, the median TAT for emergency CBCs decreased from 23 min to 11 min as did the interquartile distance (17-34 min to 8-16 min) (P < .05). The rate of emergency CBC error reports decreased from 1.39% to 0.71% (P < .05), and the specimen failure rate decreased from 0.95% to 0.32% (P < .05). Patient satisfaction also increased from 43% to 74% (P < .05), and the technician-performed morphology assessment pass rate increased from 16.7% to 100% (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Improving the emergency CBC testing process with FMEA can shorten emergency CBC laboratory TAT and reduce specimen failure rates and reporting error rates. The FMEA can be used to improve quality management in emergency CBC laboratories.

Approaching Risk Management in Medical Laboratories

Risk is one of the greatest challenges in a medical laboratory. Risk-based thinking is a concept that always preoccupies medical laboratory technicians. The objectives of this work were to bring forward the specialty standards recommendations for the implementation of risk management principles in medical laboratory, the accreditation requirement of ISO 15189:2012; to demonstrate that the understanding of the fundamental notions of the concept of risk, the effectively apply of the means of identifying, assessing and controlling risks, and the risk monitoring and handling through strategies of acceptance, elimination, transfer and mitigation of risks can ensure the continuous improvement processes. A model to approach to risk management in a medical laboratory establishes the inputs, the outputs, the techniques, and the activities carried out in each of the following sub-processes of the risk management process: risk management process planning, risk identification, risk analysis and evaluation, development of the risk response plan and risk monitoring, control and revision. The concepts of risk and risk management are applied accordingly to standards ISO 31000:2018 and ISO 22367:2020 of International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Risk management ensures that the fundamental requirements for healthy, proactive internal control of the medical laboratory are met.

Economic Evaluation of Total Laboratory Automation in the Clinical Laboratory of a Tertiary Care Hospital

Background

Total laboratory automation (TLA) is an innovation in laboratory technology; however, the high up-front costs restrict its widespread adoption. To examine whether the capital investment for TLA is worthwhile, we analyzed its clinical- and cost-effectiveness for the expected payback period.

Methods

Clinical chemistry tests and immunoassays performed in the clinical laboratory of a tertiary care hospital were divided into a post-TLA group, including 1,182,419 tests performed during December 2019, and a pre-TLA group, including 1,151,501 tests performed during December 2018. Laboratory information system data were used to measure clinical effectiveness, and depreciation data were used to calculate TLA costs.

Results

Laboratory performance improved after TLA adoption in all four key performance indicators mean turn-around time (TAT), representing the timeliness of result reporting, decreased by 6.1%; the 99th percentile of TAT, representing the outlier rate, decreased by 13.3%; the TAT CV, representing predictability, decreased by 70.0%; and weighted tube touch moment (wTTM), representing staff safety, improved by 77.6%. Based on these effectiveness results, economic evaluation was performed using two approaches. First, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio and wTTM were used as the most cost-effective performance indicators. Second, the expected payback period was calculated. Considering only staff cost reduction, it was anticipated that 4.75 yrs would be needed to payback the initial investment.

Conclusions

TLA can significantly enhance laboratory performance, has a relatively quick payback period, and can reduce total hospital expenses in the long term. Therefore, the capital investment for TLA adoption is considered to be worthwhile.

Risk assessment of the total testing process based on quality indicators with the Sigma metrics

Background Evidence-based evaluation of laboratory performances including pre-analytical, analytical and post-analytical stages of the total testing process (TTP) is crucial to ensure patients receiving safe, efficient and effective care. To conduct risk assessment, quality management tools such as Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) and the Failure Reporting and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) were constantly used for proactive or reactive analysis, respectively. However, FMEA and FRACAS faced big challenges in determining the scoring scales and failure prioritization in the assessment of real-world cases. Here, we developed a novel strategy, by incorporating Sigma metrics into risk assessment based on quality indicators (QIs) data, to provide a more objective assessment of risks in TTP. Methods QI data was collected for 1 year and FRACAS was applied to produce the risk rating based on three variables: (1) Sigma metrics for the frequency of defects; (2) possible consequence; (3) detection method. The risk priority number (RPN) of each QI was calculated by a 5-point scale score, where a value of RPN > 50 was rated as high-risk. Results The RPNs of two QIs in post-analytical phase (TAT of Stat biochemistry analyte and Timely critical values notification) were above 50 which required rigorous monitoring and corrective actions to eliminate the high risks. Nine QIs (RPNs between 25 and 50) required further investigation and monitoring. After 3 months of corrective action the two identified high-risk processes were successfully reduced. Conclusions The strategy can be implemented to reduce identified risk and assuring patient safety.

Development and Application of Computerized Risk Registry and Management Tool Based on FMEA and FRACAS for Total Testing Process

Background and Objectives: Risk management is considered an integral part of laboratory medicine to assure laboratory quality and patient safety. However, the concept of risk management is philosophical, so actually performing risk management in a clinical laboratory can be challenging. Therefore, we would like to develop a sustainable, practical system for continuous total laboratory risk management. Materials and Methods: This study was composed of two phases: the development phase in 2019 and the application phase in 2020. A concept flow diagram for the computerized risk registry and management tool (RRMT) was designed using the failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) and the failure reporting, analysis, and corrective action system (FRACAS) methods. The failure stage was divided into six according to the testing sequence. We applied laboratory errors to this system over one year in 2020. The risk priority number (RPN) score was calculated by multiplying the severity of the failure mode, frequency (or probability) of occurrence, and detection difficulty. Results: 103 cases were reported to RRMT during one year. Among them, 32 cases (31.1%) were summarized using the FMEA method, and the remaining 71 cases (68.9%) were evaluated using the FRACAS method. There was no failure in the patient registration phase. Chemistry units accounted for the highest proportion of failure with 18 cases (17.5%), while urine test units accounted for the lowest portion of failure with two cases (1.9%). Conclusion: We developed and applied a practical computerized risk-management tool based on FMEA and FRACAS methods for the entire testing process. RRMT was useful to detect, evaluate, and report failures. This system might be a great example of a risk management system optimized for clinical laboratories.

Three years' experience of quality monitoring program on pre-analytical errors in china

Background

Various errors in the procedure of specimen collection have been reported as the primary causes of pre‐analytical errors. The aim of this study was to monitor and assess the reasons and frequencies of rejected samples in China.

Methods

A pre‐analytical external quality assessment (EQA) scheme involving six quality indicators (QIs) was conducted from 2017 to 2019. Rejection rate was calculated for each QI. The difference of the rejection rates over the time was checked by Chi‐square test. Furthermore, the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the results from total laboratories each year were calculated as optimum, desirable, and minimum level of performance specifications.

Results

In total, 423 laboratories submitted data continuously for six EQA rounds. The overall rejection rates were 0.2042%, 0.1709%, 0.1942%, 0.1689%, 0.1593%, and 0.1491%, respectively. The most common error was sample hemolysed (0.0514%–0.0635%), and the least one was sample not received (0.0008%–0.0014%). A significant reduction in percentages was observed for all QIs. For biochemistry and immunology, hemolysis accounted for more than half of the rejection causes, while for hematology, the primary cause shifted from incorrect fill level to sample clotted. The quality specifications had improved over time, except for the optimum level.

Conclusion

The significant reduction in error rates on sample rejection we observed suggested that laboratories should pay more attention to the standardized specimen collection. We also provide a benchmark for QIs performance specification to help laboratories increase awareness about the critical aspects in the need of improvement actions.