Quality in laboratory medicine: 50years on

Laboratory test utilization and effect on clinical outcomes in a pediatric setting

Given recent economic concerns, there has been pressure on the health-care system to improve efficiency, quality and reduce cost. The clinical laboratory is now under close scrutiny to adopt "practicing to value" which involves shifting its focus from performing many tests to performing only necessary tests. To achieve this, clinical laboratories have been implementing strategies for effective laboratory test utilization and participating in health outcome studies to provide evidenced-based insights on test utilization, clinical decision-making and policy improvements. It is essential to highlight the full spectrum of this additional role of the clinical laboratory to administrators, policy makers and other health-care stakeholders, as clinical laboratories are an easy target for economic restrictions. This review highlights how strategic stewardship implementation by a clinical laboratory improves clinical outcomes in a pediatric setting.

Exploring the extent of post-analytical errors, with a focus on transcription errors - an intervention within the VIPVIZA study

OBJECTIVES

We examined the magnitude of transcription errors in lipid variables in the VIPVIZA study and assessed whether education among the research personnel reduced the error frequency at follow-up. We also examined how the errors affected the SCORE2 risk prediction algorithm for cardiovascular disease, which includes lipid parameters, as this could lead to an incorrect treatment decision.

METHODS

The VIPVIZA study includes assessment of lipid parameters, where results for total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL cholesterol, and calculated LDL cholesterol are transcribed into the research database by research nurses. Transcription errors were identified by recalculating LDL cholesterol, and a difference>0.15 indicated a transcription error in any of the four lipid parameters. To assess the presence of risk category misclassification, we compared the individual's SCORE2 risk category based on incorrect lipid levels to the SCORE2 categories based on the correct lipid levels.

RESULTS

The transcription error frequency was 0.55 % in the 2019 VIPVIZA research database and halved after the educational intervention to 0.25 % in 2023. Of the 39 individuals who had a transcription error in total or HDL cholesterol (with the possibility of affecting the SCORE2 risk category based on non-HDL cholesterol), six individuals (15 %) received an incorrect risk category due to the error.

CONCLUSIONS

Transcription errors persist despite digitalisation improvements. It is essential to minimise transcriptions in fields outside the laboratory environment, as we observed that critical decisions also rely on accurate information such as the SCORE2-risk algorithm, which is dependent on lab results but not necessarily reported by the laboratory.

[Position paper of DGKL and DIVI on requirements for laboratory services in intensive care and emergency medicine]

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

The timely determination and evaluation of laboratory parameters in patients with acute life- or organ-threatening diseases and disease states in the emergency room or intensive care units can be essential for diagnosis, initiation of therapy, and outcome. The aim of the position paper is to define the time requirements for the provision of laboratory results in emergency and intensive care medicine. Requirements for point-of-care testing (POCT) and the (central) laboratory can be derived from the urgency.

METHODS

Expert groups from the DGKL (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Klinische Chemie und Laboratoriumsmedizin) and DIVI (Deutsche Interdisziplinäre Vereinigung für Intensiv- und Notfallmedizin) developed a classification about the urgency for the determination of laboratory parameters as well as recommendations on the necessary organizational framework and quality assurance measures using national and international guidelines, review articles, and original papers.

RESULTS

Three levels of urgency are defined, based on the turnaround time of the most common laboratory parameters: emergency 1, with a turnaround time of no more than 15 min; emergency 2, with a turnaround time of a maximum of 60 min; urgent case, with a turnaround time within 4 h. In addition, a recommendation is made when to provide the results for the main ward rounds in the intensive care unit and the emergency department.

CONCLUSIONS

The recommendations allow the organizational and technical regulations for each hospital to be aligned with the urgency of the provision of the test results to the medical team based on the medical requirements.

Laboratory Test Names Matter: A Survey on What Works and What Doesn't Work for Orders and Results

CONTEXT.—

Health care providers were surveyed to determine their ability to correctly decipher laboratory test names and their preferences for laboratory test names and result displays.

OBJECTIVE.—

To confirm principles for laboratory test nomenclature and display and to compare and contrast the abilities and preferences of different provider groups for laboratory test names.

DESIGN.—

Health care providers across different specialties and perspectives completed a survey of 38 questions, which included participant demographics, real-life examples of poorly named laboratory orders that they were asked to decipher, an assessment of vitamin D test name knowledge, their preferences for ideal names for tests, and their preferred display for test results. Participants were grouped and compared by profession, level of training, and the presence or absence of specialization in informatics and/or laboratory medicine.

RESULTS.—

Participants struggled with poorly named tests, especially with less commonly ordered tests. Participants' knowledge of vitamin D analyte names was poor and consistent with prior published studies. The most commonly selected ideal names correlated positively with the percentage of the authors' previously developed naming rules (R = 0.54, P < .001). There was strong consensus across groups for the best result display.

CONCLUSIONS.—

Poorly named laboratory tests are a significant source of provider confusion, and tests that are named according to the authors' naming rules as outlined in this article have the potential to improve test ordering and correct interpretation of results. Consensus among provider groups indicates that a single yet clear naming strategy for laboratory tests is achievable.

Quality standards and internal quality control practices in medical laboratories: an IFCC global survey of member societies

OBJECTIVES

The trueness and precision of clinical laboratory results are ensured through total quality management systems (TQM), which primarily include internal quality control (IQC) practices. However, quality practices vary globally. To understand the current global state of IQC practice and IQC management in relation to TQM the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) Task Force on Global Laboratory Quality (TF-GLQ) conducted a survey of IFCC member countries on IQC practices and management.

METHODS

The survey included 16 questions regarding IQC and laboratory TQM practices and was distributed to IFCC full and affiliate member countries (n=110). A total of 46 (41.8 %) responses were received from all regions except North America.

RESULTS

Of the responding countries, 78.3 % (n=36) had legislative regulations or accreditation requirements governing medical laboratory quality standards. However, implementation was not mandatory in 46.7 % (n=21) of responding countries. IQC practices varied considerably with 57.1 % (n=28) of respondents indicating that they run 2 levels of IQC, 66.7 % (n=24) indicating they run IQC every 24 h and 66.7 % (n=28) using assay manufacturer IQC material sources. Only 29.3 % (n=12) of respondents indicated that every medical laboratory in their country has written IQC policies and procedures. By contrast, 97.6 % (n=40) of responding countries indicated they take corrective action and result remediation in the event of IQC failure.

CONCLUSIONS

The variability in TQM and IQC practices highlights the need for more formal programs and education to standardize and improve TQM in medical laboratories.

How South Africa Used National Cycle Threshold (Ct) Values to Continuously Monitor SARS-CoV-2 Laboratory Test Quality

The high demand for SARS-CoV-2 tests but limited supply to South African laboratories early in the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a heterogenous diagnostic footprint of open and closed molecular testing platforms being implemented. Ongoing monitoring of the performance of these multiple and varied systems required novel approaches, especially during the circulation of variants. The National Health Laboratory Service centrally collected cycle threshold (Ct) values from 1,497,669 test results reported from 6 commonly used PCR assays in 36 months, and visually monitored changes in their median Ct within a 28-day centered moving average for each assays' gene targets. This continuous quality monitoring rapidly identified delayed hybridization of RdRp in the Allplex™ SARS-CoV-2 assay due to the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant; S-gene target failure in the TaqPath™ COVID-19 assay due to B.1.1.7 (Alpha) and the B.1.1.529 (Omicron); and recently E-gene delayed hybridization in the Xpert® Xpress SARS-CoV-2 due to XBB.1.5. This near "real-time" monitoring helped inform the need for sequencing and the importance of multiplex molecular nucleic acid amplification technology designs used in diagnostics for patient care. This continuous quality monitoring approach at the granularity of Ct values should be included in ongoing surveillance and with application to other disease use cases that rely on molecular diagnostics.

Difference- and regression-based approaches for detection of bias

OBJECTIVE

This simulation study was undertaken to assess the statistical performance of six commonly used rejection criteria for bias detection.

METHODS

The false rejection rate (i.e. rejection in the absence of simulated bias) and the probability of bias detection were assessed for the following: difference in measurements for individual sample pair, the mean of the paired differences, t-statistics (paired t-test), slope < 0.9 or > 1.1, intercept > 50% of the lower limit of measurement range, and coefficient of determination (R²) > 0.95. The linear regressions evaluated were ordinary least squares, weighted least squares and Passing-Bablok regressions. A bias detection rate of < 50% and false rejection rates of >10% are considered unacceptable for the purpose of this study.

RESULTS

Rejection criteria based on regression slope, intercept and paired difference (10%) for individual samples have high false rejection rates and/ or low probability of bias detection. T-statistics (α = 0.05) performed best in low range ratio (lowest-to-highest concentration in measurement range) and low imprecision scenarios. Mean difference (10%) performed better in all other range ratio and imprecision scenarios. Combining mean difference and paired-t test improves the power of bias detection but carries higher false rejection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provided objective evidence on commonly used rejection criteria to guide laboratory on the experimental design and statistical assessment for bias detection during method evaluation or reagent lot verification.

Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: state-of-the-art, quality specifications and future strategies

In the last few decades, quality in laboratory medicine has evolved in concert with the transformation and the changes (technological, scientific and organizational) in this sector. Laboratory professionals have faced great challenges, at times being overwhelmed, yet also involved in this progress. Worldwide, laboratory professionals and scientific societies involved in laboratory medicine have raised awareness concerning the need to identify new quality assurance tools that are effective in reducing the error rate and enhancing patient safety, in addition to Internal Quality Control (IQC) procedures and the participation in the External Quality Assessment Schemes (EQAS). The use of Quality Indicators (QIs), specifically designed for laboratory medicine are effective in assessing and monitoring all critical events occurring in the different phases of Total Testing Process (TTP), in particular, in the extra-analytical phases. The Model of Quality Indicators (MQI), proposed by the Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" (WG-LEPS) of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) and validated by experts in consensus conferences, is an important window of opportunity for the medical laboratory to demonstrate the use of an effective quality assurance tool fit for this purpose. Aim of this paper is to provide an update of the state-of-the-art concerning the most used QIs data collected in 2021 and the Quality Specifications (QSs) proposed for their evaluation. Moreover, a strategy for the future is proposed in order to improve the MQI and encourage its use in medical laboratories throughout the world.

Donor Safety, Discrepancies Between Practice and Theory: Analysis of the Polish Supreme Audit Office's Report

The introduction and development of genetic testing has caused the emergence of numerous dilemmas, which pertain to the performed tests, their results, and the influence they have on an individual person. To minimize potential doubts, it is crucial to ensure compliance with established procedures and to fulfill all test-associated formalities. In 2018, a report of the Polish Supreme Audit's Office (a governmental control agency) on the quality of genetic tests revealed that there is much to be done in the field of laboratory diagnostics in Poland. The inspection of six selected laboratories performing genetic tests identified shortcomings in terms of formalities accompanying the process of performing laboratory tests, keeping patient documentation and personal data protection. Although the observed shortcomings pertained to legal aspects of genetic tests, and not the quality of the tests themselves, the aforementioned may be detrimental to the individual person and the society (eg, lack of consent undermines the concept of biological material ownership), may cause legal liability to the laboratory personnel and even undermine public trust in genetic testing.

Inter-rater reliability assessment for the new-born screening quality assurance

Introduction

To ensure the quality of the new-born screening (NBS), our laboratory reviewed the analytical procedure to detect subjective steps that may represent a risk to the patient. Two subjective activities were identified in the extra-analytical phases: the classification of dried blood spots (DBS) according to their quality and the assignment of haemoglobin patterns. To keep these activities under control, inter-rater studies were implemented. This study aimed to evaluate the inter-rater reliability and the effectiveness of the measures taken to improve the agreement between observers, to assure NBS results’ quality.

Materials and methods

Dried blood spots specimens were used for the inter-rater studies. Ten studies were performed to assess DBS quality classification, and four to assess the assignment of haemoglobin patterns. Krippendorff’s alpha test was used to estimate inter-rater reliability. Causes were investigated when alpha values were below 0.80.

Results

For both activities, the reliability obtained in the first studies was inadequate. After investigation, we detected that the criterion to classify a DBS as scant was not consolidated, and also a lack of consensus on whether or not to report Bart’s haemoglobin depending on its percentage. Alpha estimates became higher once the training was reinforced and a consensus about the appropriate criteria to be applied was reached.

Conclusion

Inter-rater reliability assessment helped us to ensure the quality of subjective activities that could add variability to NBS results. Furthermore, the evolution of the alpha value over time allowed us to verify the effectiveness of the measures adopted.

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.

The cell theory and cellular pathology: Discovery, refinements and applications fundamental to advances in biology and medicine

This review explores the developments leading up to the establishment of the cell theory and cellular pathology and their subsequent refinements and applications while focusing on the individuals who have made seminal advances in the field. The links between cell biology, cell pathology and cell injury research are emphasized. Recognition also is given to the importance of technological advances in microscopy, histology, biochemical and molecular methods for discovery in cell biology and cell pathology. Particular attention is focused on the work of Rudolph Virchow and his former students in the formulation of the cell theory in biology and pathology and John F. R. Kerr and colleagues who identified and developed a comprehensive characterization of apoptosis, thereby giving impetus to the contemporary field of cell injury research. Cell injury research remains an important and fruitful field of ongoing inquiry and discovery.

Laboratory medicine in the COVID-19 era: six lessons for the future

The lockdown due to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a major healthcare challenge, is a worldwide threat to public health, social stability, and economic development. The pandemic has affected all aspects of society, dramatically changing our day-to-day lives and habits. It has also changed clinical practice, including practices of clinical laboratories. After one year, it is time to rethink what has happened, and is still happening, in order to learn lessons for the future of laboratory medicine and its professionals. While examining this issue, I was inspired by Italo Calvino's famous work, "Six memos for the next millennium".But I rearranged the Author's six memos into "Visibility, quickness, exactitude, multiplicity, lightness, consistency".

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

Background Quality indicators (QIs) and risk management are important tools for a quality management system designed to reduce errors in a laboratory. This study aimed to show the effectiveness of QI-based risk management for the continual improvement of pre-analytical processes in the Kayseri Public Health Laboratory (KPHL) which serves family physicians and collects samples from peripheral sampling units. Methods QIs of pre-analytical process were used for risk assessment with the failure modes and effects analysis (FMEA) method. Percentages and risk priority numbers (RPNs) of QIs were quantified. QI percentages were compared to the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) performance specifications and RPNs were compared to risk level scale, and corrective actions planned if needed. The effectiveness of risk treatment actions was re-evaluated with the new percentages and with RPNs of predefined QIs. Results RPNs related to four QIs required corrective action according to the risk evaluation scale. After risk treatment, the continual improvement was achieved for performance and risk level of "transcription errors", for risk levels of "misidentified samples" and "not properly stored samples" and for the performance of "hemolyzed samples". "Not properly stored samples" had the highest risk score because of sample storage and centrifugation problems of peripheral sampling units which are not under the responsibility of the KPHL. Conclusions Public health laboratories may have different risk priorities for pre-analytical process. Risk management based on predefined QIs can decrease the risk levels and increase QI performance as evidence-based examples for continual improvement of the pre-analytical process.

Anti-ganglioside antibodies: experience from the Italian Association of Neuroimmunology external quality assessment scheme

Background Anti-ganglioside antibodies are currently used in the differential diagnosis of suspected immune-mediated neuropathies. In-house and increasingly used commercial assays seem to perform suboptimally, and comparative information on their analytical performance are essentially lacking. Born within the frame of guidelines and standardization activities by the Italian Association of Neuroimmunology, this external quality assessment scheme (EQAS) is a real-life snapshot of the laboratory diagnostics in this field. Methods The EQAS consisted of five surplus, anonymized serum samples from patients with clinically-defined neuropathies and two serum samples from healthy blood donors. Eight laboratories used commercial line-/dot-blots, seven in-house/commercial ELISAs (in addition, 13 laboratories tested a recently released ELISA by Bühlmann). Only high anti-ganglioside antibody reactivities were considered, in accordance with consolidated recommendations. Results Large variations in anti-ganglioside antibody profiles were observed, even, although to a lesser extent, within homogeneous classes of assays. Concordance between the profiles and clinical phenotypes was also partial. Conclusions Although conducted on a relatively small, but representative number of Italian laboratories, this EQAS shows a critical between-laboratory disagreement in the test results of anti-ganglioside antibodies. Also considering the trend for using certified assays in generalist laboratories, strong efforts toward standardization and the identification of the best method(s) for their determinations are compellingly needed.

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.

Harmonization in laboratory medicine: more than clinical chemistry?

The goal of harmonizing laboratory information is to contribute to quality in patient care, ultimately improving upon patient outcomes and safety. The main focus of harmonization and standardization initiatives has been on analytical processes within the laboratory walls, clinical chemistry tests in particular. However, two major evidences obtained in recent years show that harmonization should be promoted not only in the analytical phase but also in all steps of the testing process, encompassing the entire field of laboratory medicine, including innovative areas (e.g. “omics”) rather than just conventional clinical chemistry tests. A large body of evidence demonstrates the vulnerability of the extra-analytical phases of the testing cycle. Because only “good biological samples” can assure good analytical quality, a closer interconnection between the different phases of the cycle is needed. In order to provide reliable and accurate laboratory information, harmonization activities should cover all steps of the cycle from the “pre-pre-analytical” phase (right choice of test at right time for right patient) through the analytical steps (right results with right report) to the “post-post-analytical” steps (right and timely acknowledgment of laboratory information, right interpretation and utilization with any necessary advice as to what to do next with the information provided). In addition, modern clinical laboratories are performing a broad menu of hundreds of tests, covering both traditional and innovative subspecialties of the discipline. In addition, according to a centered viewpoint, harmonization initiatives should not be addressed exclusively to clinical chemistry tests but should also include all areas of laboratory medicine.

Quality and future of clinical laboratories: the Vico’s whole cyclical theory of the recurring cycles

In the last few decades, laboratory medicine has undergone monumental changes, and laboratory technology, which has made enormous advances, now has new clinical applications thanks to the identification of a growing number of biomarkers and risk factors conducive to the promotion of predictive and preventive interventions that have enhanced the role of laboratory medicine in health care delivering. However, the paradigm shift in the past 50 years has led to a gap between laboratory and clinic, with an increased risk of inappropriateness in test request and interpretation, as well as the consolidation of analytical work in focused factories and megastructurers oriented only toward achieving greater volumes, decreasing cost per test and generating a vision of laboratory services as simple commodities. A careful historical revision of the changing models for delivering laboratory services in the United States leads to the prediction that there are several reasons for counteracting the vision of clinical laboratory as a commodity, and restoring the true nature of laboratory services as an integral part of the diagnosis and therapy process. The present study, which reports on internal and external drivers for change, proposes an integrated vision of quality in laboratory medicine.

Extra-analytical quality indicators – where to now?

A large body of evidence collected in recent years demonstrates the vulnerability of the extra-analytical phases of the total testing process (TTP) and the need to promote quality and harmonization in each and every step of the testing cycle. Quality indicators (QIs), which play a key role in documenting and improving quality in TTP, are essential requirements for clinical laboratory accreditation. In the last few years, wide consensus has been achieved on the need to adopt universal QIs and common terminology and to harmonize the management procedure concerning their use by adopting a common metric and reporting system. This, in turn, has led to the definition of performance specifications for extra-analytical phases based on the state of the art as indicated by data collected on QIs, particularly by clinical laboratories attending the Model of Quality Indicators program launched by the Working Group “Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety” of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Harmonization plays a fundamental role defining not only the list of QIs to use but also performance specifications based on the state of the art, thus providing a valuable interlaboratory benchmark and tools for continuous improvement programs.

Defining a roadmap for harmonizing quality indicators in Laboratory Medicine: a consensus statement on behalf of the IFCC Working Group "Laboratory Error and Patient Safety" and EFLM Task and Finish Group "Performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases"

The improving quality of laboratory testing requires a deep understanding of the many vulnerable steps involved in the total examination process (TEP), along with the identification of a hierarchy of risks and challenges that need to be addressed. From this perspective, the Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" (WG-LEPS) of International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) is focusing its activity on implementation of an efficient tool for obtaining meaningful information on the risk of errors developing throughout the TEP, and for establishing reliable information about error frequencies and their distribution. More recently, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has created the Task and Finish Group "Performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases" (TFG-PSEP) for defining performance specifications for extra-analytical phases. Both the IFCC and EFLM groups are working to provide laboratories with a system to evaluate their performances and recognize the critical aspects where improvement actions are needed. A Consensus Conference was organized in Padova, Italy, in 2016 in order to bring together all the experts and interested parties to achieve a consensus for effective harmonization of quality indicators (QIs). A general agreement was achieved and the main outcomes have been the release of a new version of model of quality indicators (MQI), the approval of a criterion for establishing performance specifications and the definition of the type of information that should be provided within the report to the clinical laboratories participating to the QIs project.