Laboratory-associated and diagnostic errors: a neglected link

Identification of a Theory-Practice Gap in the Education of Biomedical Scientists

Introduction

The Biomedical Scientist (BMS) role is established in healthcare, working in laboratory environments to provide diagnostic testing and to monitor treatment effects on a patients' health. The profession is subject to several professional standards which highlight the importance of working in the best interests of the patient and service user. However, Biomedical Scientists have little or no patient contact. This study aimed to determine how Biomedical Scientists evidence that they meet the professional standards and support the achievement of patient outcomes.

Materials and Methods

This study utilised a Delphi method to explore the opinions of professional stakeholders to determine whether there was consensus for how this professional group contributes to patient outcomes and offers evidence that they are working in the best interests of the patient. The qualitative 1st round of the study consisted of focus groups and interviews with staff and students on the BSc Biomedical Science awards, Professional, Statutory and Regulatory body (PSRB) representatives and Biomedical Scientists from the National Health Service (NHS). The first-round responses were analysed using thematic analysis which then generated attitude statements which participants scored using a 5-point Likert scale in the 2nd round. Consensus or divergence of opinion was determined based upon a 70% consensus level within each participant group and overall.

Results

Following analysis of the 2nd round data, there was divergence of opinion across all stakeholders, with consensus rates being highest in the Biomedical Scientist group (72.7% of statements reached 70% consensus), followed by the student group (54.5% of statements reached 70% consensus) and lowest in the academic group (40.9% of statements reached 70% consensus).

Discussion

This demonstrates a theory-practice gap in both the academic and student groups, suggesting that graduates are insufficiently prepared for their post-graduate role. This gap was particularly evident when discussing topics such as how Biomedical Scientists contribute to patient care, professional registration and working as part of the multi-disciplinary team (MDT). The identification of a theory-practice gap in the education of Biomedical Scientists is a novel finding, indicating that students may graduate with insufficient understanding of the Biomedical Scientist role.

Finish before the start: Analyzing preanalytical sample errors in a tertiary care hematology laboratory

Aims

(a) To evaluate the types and frequencies of preanalytical errors occurring in a tertiary care hematology diagnostic center and (b) To evaluate differences if any, across groups [outpatient data (OPD) vs inpatient data (IPD), type of test requested [complete blood count (CBC) vs coagulation] and laboratory (routine vs emergency).

Settings and Design

A prospective study was conducted over a period of nine months (August 2017-April 2018) to address the above objectives. All samples received in the clinical hematology division of our institute were included in the analysis.

Materials and Methods

Categories of preanalytical errors were defined. This included insufficient, clotted, diluted, and lipemic samples. Clerical errors such as wrong/absent sample labeling, requisition form-sample mismatch, and wrong vacutainer selection were also documented. IPD and OPD data, as well as data pertaining to samples sent for different tests [complete blood count (CBC)/coagulation] and in the routine and emergency laboratories, were segregated.

Statistical Analysis Used

All errors in each category were recorded as numbers and corresponding percentages (proportions). The two-tailed z-test was applied to assess the significance of the difference in proportions across all groups. Statistical significance was kept at P < 0.05.

Results

A total of 189,104 samples were received in the clinical hematology laboratory during the aforementioned period, out of which preanalytical errors were found in 4052 (2.14%) samples. Inadequate sample quantity (ISQ) comprised the bulk of preanalytical errors in our laboratory (1.11% of total samples) followed by sample clots (0.88%). There was no significant difference in the error frequencies in OPD and IPD (P = 0.1031). The proportion of errors was higher in routine vis-à -vis emergency samples and also in samples sent for coagulation analysis vis-à -vis CBC.

What Contributes to Diagnostic Error or Delay? A Qualitative Exploration Across Diverse Acute Care Settings in the United States

OBJECTIVES

Diagnostic error and delay is a prevalent and impactful problem. This study was part of a mixed-methods approach to understand the organizational, clinician, and patient factors contributing to diagnostic error and delay among acutely ill patients within a health system, as well as recommendations for the development of tailored, targeted, feasible, and effective interventions.

METHODS

We did a multisite qualitative study using focus group methodology to explore the perspectives of key clinician stakeholders. We used a conceptual framework that characterized diagnostic error and delay as occurring within 1 of 3 stages of the patient's diagnostic journey-critical information gathering, synthesis of key information, and decision making and communication. We developed our moderator guide based on the sociotechnical frameworks previously described by Holden and Singh for understanding noncognitive factors that lead to diagnostic error and delay. Deidentified focus group transcripts were coded in triplicate and to consensus over a series of meetings. A final coded data set was then uploaded into NVivo software. The data were then analyzed to generate overarching themes and categories.

RESULTS

We recruited a total of 64 participants across 4 sites from emergency departments, hospital floor, and intensive care unit settings into 11 focus groups. Clinicians perceive that diverse organizational, communication and coordination, individual clinician, and patient factors interact to impede the process of making timely and accurate diagnoses.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the complex sociotechnical system within which individual clinicians operate and the contributions of systems, processes, and institutional factors to diagnostic error and delay.

The Clinical Approach on Receipt of an Unexpected Laboratory Test Result

Approximately 70% of all healthcare decisions affecting diagnosis and treatment involve the use of tests performed within pathology laboratories. The utilisation of diagnostic laboratory services continues to increase, with growth both in volume of tests requested, as well as in the breadth of test repertoire. Every year in the United Kingdom, approximately 1 billion tests are run in hospital laboratories, equivalent to 14 tests per person. Fifty million tests are requested in primary care. Accordingly, there is an inevitable increase in the number of unexpected laboratory results which clinicians review. This is an important, and potentially time-consuming, issue, which we considered to merit a more detailed discussion. Unexpected laboratory results may be critical or non-critical in nature. They may be absolutely genuine, reflecting a clinical change in the patient’s condition, a differential diagnosis not previously considered, or an additional test specifically added by the laboratory. However, such results may also occur due to a variety of different circumstances, including much more rarely laboratory error. As there is little published evidence or guidance available, herein we discuss aspects of the clinical approach for physicians after receiving an unexpected laboratory test result.

Something's Lost and Something's Gained: Seeing Reference Laboratory Quality from Both Sides, Now

Growing regulatory burdens, payment model changes, and increased complexity in laboratory medicine have contributed to an increased reliance on reference laboratories. Although reference laboratories often offer rapid, low cost, high quality testing, outsourcing laboratory tests can create quality and patient safety vulnerabilities particularly in the pre-analytic and post-analytic phases of the test cycle. Disconnects in governance, policy, and information technology between the reference laboratory and the referring provider conspire to increase risk. Laboratory leaders seeking to reduce risk and improve quality must ensure clear and collaborative oversight, monitor meaningful quality metrics, and integrate feedback from ordering providers.

Sources and solutions for spurious test results in coagulation

In the coagulation laboratory, much emphasis has been placed on rapid and accurate testing; however, spurious results that are inaccurate and do not reflect the actual status of the patient can potentially lead to an incorrect diagnosis and altered intervention. Errors in coagulation results and interpretation can occur at any point of the process from obtaining the specimen to interpretation and use of the result by the clinician. The main sources of error include the patient's biological and preanalytical variation, analytical testing, and postanalytical use of the reported result(s). This article reviews various sources of error leading to spurious results, providing methods to recognize these aberrant results and presenting solutions for minimizing their occurrence.

Driving the route of laboratory medicine: a manifesto for the future

The role of laboratory medicine is essential in healthcare, since in vitro diagnostic testing represents now an unavoidable part of reasoning and clinical decision making. Laboratory tests are an essential part of most care pathways, aimed at optimizing resource utilization and improving patient outcome. The activity of laboratory professionals is interconnected with all medical disciplines, and provides a crucial support for ordering the right test, for the right patient and at the right time, but also helps interpreting and using laboratory data. Although recent advancement in laboratory medicine, catalyzed by technical innovations and development of innovative tests, have promoted a substantial revolution in the organization of clinical laboratories, the future of this profession seems still ambiguous. We have hence developed a "manifesto" of laboratory medicine, meant to promote an innovative prospect of our discipline and encouraging the establishment of a new generation of laboratory professionals and managers.

System-related and cognitive errors in laboratory medicine

Current efforts focusing on better defining the prevalence of diagnostic errors, their causes and remediation strategies should address the role of laboratory testing and its contribution to high-quality care as well as a possible source of diagnostic errors. Data collected in the last few years highlight the vulnerability of extra-analytical phases of the testing cycle and the need for programs aiming to improve all steps of the process. Further studies have clarified the nature of laboratory-related errors, namely the evidence that both system-related and cognitive factors account for most errors in laboratory medicine. Technology developments are effective in decreasing the rates of system-related errors but organizational issues play a fundamental role in assuring a real improvement in quality and safety in laboratory processes. Educational interventions as well as technology-based interventions have been proposed to reduce the risk of cognitive errors. However, to reduce diagnostic errors and improve patient safety, clinical laboratories have to embark on a paradigmatic shift restoring the nature of laboratory services as an integral part of the diagnostic and therapy process.

Clinical laboratory: bigger is not always better

Laboratory services around the world are undergoing substantial consolidation and changes through mechanisms ranging from mergers, acquisitions and outsourcing, primarily based on expectations to improve efficiency, increasing volumes and reducing the cost per test. However, the relationship between volume and costs is not linear and numerous variables influence the end cost per test. In particular, the relationship between volumes and costs does not span the entire platter of clinical laboratories: high costs are associated with low volumes up to a threshold of 1 million test per year. Over this threshold, there is no linear association between volumes and costs, as laboratory organization rather than test volume more significantly affects the final costs. Currently, data on laboratory errors and associated diagnostic errors and risk for patient harm emphasize the need for a paradigmatic shift: from a focus on volumes and efficiency to a patient-centered vision restoring the nature of laboratory services as an integral part of the diagnostic and therapy process. Process and outcome quality indicators are effective tools to measure and improve laboratory services, by stimulating a competition based on intra- and extra-analytical performance specifications, intermediate outcomes and customer satisfaction. Rather than competing with economic value, clinical laboratories should adopt a strategy based on a set of harmonized quality indicators and performance specifications, active laboratory stewardship, and improved patient safety.

Patient and Sample Identification. Out of the Maze?

Patient and sample misidentification may cause significant harm or discomfort to the patients, especially when incorrect data is used for performing specific healthcare activities. It is hence obvious that efficient and quality care can only start from accurate patient identification. There are many opportunities for misidentification in healthcare and laboratory medicine, including homonymy, incorrect patient registration, reliance on wrong patient data, mistakes in order entry, collection of biological specimens from wrong patients, inappropriate sample labeling and inaccurate entry or erroneous transmission of test results through the laboratory information system. Many ongoing efforts are made to prevent this important healthcare problem, entailing streamlined strategies for identifying patients throughout the healthcare industry by means of traditional and innovative identifiers, as well as using technologic tools that may enhance both the quality and efficiency of blood tubes labeling. The aim of this article is to provide an overview about the liability of identification errors in healthcare, thus providing a pragmatic approach for diverging the so-called patient identification crisis.

Risk analysis of the preanalytical process based on quality indicators data

BACKGROUND

Improving quality and patient safety in the medical biochemistry laboratory accredited according to the International Standard Organization (ISO 15189:2012) requires the patient-centered evaluation of errors based on the implementation of quality indicators (QIs) across the total testing process. Our main goal was to achieve quality improvement of the preanalytical process in an emergency laboratory which had the highest error rate using risk management principles.

METHODS

Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) was applied to analyze predefined preanalytical QIs and score laboratory failures for the failure demerit value (FDV), probability of failure (PF) and probability of failure remedy (PFR). Based on obtained scores (on a 10-point scale) risk priority numbers (RPNs) were calculated.

RESULTS

A total of five failure modes were identified in the preanalytic process. The calculated risks were "sample hemolysis" (RPN, 168),"misidentified samples" (RPN, 108),"samples clotted" (RPN, 90),"sample volume error" (RPN, 72) and "samples transported at inappropriate temperature" (RPN, 24). The activation of corrective risk-reducing measures for failure modes with RPN≥30 resulted in quality improvement with the significant decrease in reevaluated RPNs.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of a preanalytical quality monitoring system based on observation of evidence-based QIs and patient-centered evaluation of errors through risk analysis with regular tailored education as well as implementing process improvements can effectively reduce preanalytical errors in the emergency laboratory and improve patient safety.

Current Evidence and Future Perspectives on the Effective Practice of Patient-Centered Laboratory Medicine

BACKGROUND

Systematic evidence of the contribution made by laboratory medicine to patient outcomes and the overall process of healthcare is difficult to find. An understanding of the value of laboratory medicine, how it can be determined, and the various factors that influence it is vital to ensuring that the service is provided and used optimally.

CONTENT

This review summarizes existing evidence supporting the impact of laboratory medicine in healthcare and indicates the gaps in our understanding. It also identifies deficiencies in current utilization, suggests potential solutions, and offers a vision of a future in which laboratory medicine is used optimally to support patient care.

SUMMARY

To maximize the value of laboratory medicine, work is required in 5 areas: (a) improved utilization of existing and new tests; (b) definition of new roles for laboratory professionals that are focused on optimizing patient outcomes by adding value at all points of the diagnostic brain-to-brain cycle; (c) development of standardized protocols for prospective patient-centered studies of biomarker clinical effectiveness or extraanalytical process effectiveness; (d) benchmarking of existing and new tests in specified situations with commonly accepted measures of effectiveness; (e) agreed definition and validation of effectiveness measures and use of checklists for articles submitted for publication. Progress in these areas is essential if we are to demonstrate and enhance the value of laboratory medicine and prevent valuable information being lost in meaningless data. This requires effective collaboration with clinicians, and a determination to accept patient outcome and patient experience as the primary measure of laboratory effectiveness.