Managing hemolyzed samples in clinical laboratories

Hemolysis is conventionally defined as membrane disruption of red blood cells and other blood cells that is accompanied by subsequent release of intracellular components into the serum or plasma. It accounts for over 60% of blood sample rejections in the laboratory and is the most common preanalytical error in laboratory medicine. Hemolysis can occur both in vivo and in vitro. Intravascular hemolysis (in vivo) is always associated with an underlying pathological condition or disease, and thus careful steps should always be taken by the laboratory to exclude in vivo hemolysis with confidence. In vitro hemolysis, on the other hand, is highly preventable. It may occur at all stages of the preanalytical phase (i.e. sample collection, transport, handling and storage), and may lead to clinically relevant, yet spurious, changes in patient results by interfering with laboratory measurements. Hemolysis interference is exerted through several mechanisms: (1) spectrophotometric interference, (2) release of intracellular components, (3) sample dilution and (4) chemical interference. The degree of interference observed depends on the level of hemolysis and also on the assay methodology. Recent evidence shows that preanalytical practices related to detection and management of hemolyzed samples are highly heterogeneous and need to be standardized. The Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has published many recommendations for facilitating standardization and improvement of this important preanalytical issue. Some key EFLM WG-PRE publications related to hemolysis involve: (i) a call for more transparency and some practical recommendations for improving the harmonization of the automatic assessment of serum indices and their clinical usefulness, specifically the hemolysis index (H-index), (ii) recommendations on how to manage local quality assurance of serum or plasma hemolysis/icterus/lipemia-indices (HIL-indices) and (iii) recommendations on how to detect and manage hemolyzed samples in clinical chemistry testing. In this review we provide a comprehensive overview of hemolysis, including its causes and effects on clinical laboratory assays. Furthermore, we list and discuss the most recent recommendations aimed at managing hemolyzed samples in everyday practice. Given the high prevalence of hemolyzed blood samples, the associated costs, the great heterogeneity in how hemolysis is handled across healthcare settings, countries and continents, and increasing patient cross-border mobility, standardization and quality improvement processes aimed at combatting this important preanalytical problem are clearly warranted.

Visual assessment of hemolysis affects patient safety

BACKGROUND

Manual handling of hemolyzed samples is not standardized and is vulnerable to errors. This study aimed to evaluate laboratory errors due to manual handling of hemolyzed samples and to assess the risk they might have for patient safety.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively obtained from a laboratory information system for 25 emergency tests from hemolyzed samples. Hemolysis (concentration of free hemoglobin >0.5 g/L) was visually assessed by comparison with a color chart. The reference person reestimated the routinely assessed degree of hemolysis to all samples (n=3185) received in the laboratory in a 1-week period. For each test, the correct and incorrect way of handling results was determined. Risk assessment was performed according to ISO 14971 standard with five categories of risk (S1-S5) and error occurrence (O1-O5).

RESULTS

In the studied period, the emergency laboratory received 495 hemolyzed samples (15.5%) with a total of 2518 laboratory test requests (15.5%): 102 (20.6%) of the reports from hemolyzed samples had a comment on hemolysis; 31% of the test results were handled incorrectly (20.7% due to the incorrect release of the test result despite hemolysis interference and 10.3% due to unnecessary suppression), accounting for 4.8% of the total test volume. Tests with the highest combination of risk and occurrence rate were troponin T, potassium and total bilirubin.

CONCLUSIONS

Manual handling of hemolyzed samples may lead to risk of errors in reporting results for troponin T, potassium and total bilirubin, which may have an effect on clinical decision. In addition, unnecessary suppression of the sample results unaffected by hemolysis could affect patient outcome.

Preanalytical quality improvement: from dream to reality

Abstract Laboratory diagnostics (i.e., the total testing process) develops conventionally through a virtual loop, originally referred to as "the brain to brain cycle" by George Lundberg. Throughout this complex cycle, there is an inherent possibility that a mistake might occur. According to reliable data, preanalytical errors still account for nearly 60%-70% of all problems occurring in laboratory diagnostics, most of them attributable to mishandling procedures during collection, handling, preparing or storing the specimens. Although most of these would be "intercepted" before inappropriate reactions are taken, in nearly one fifth of the cases they can produce inappropriate investigations and unjustifiable increase in costs, while generating inappropriate clinical decisions and causing some unfortunate circumstances. Several steps have already been undertaken to increase awareness and establish a governance of this frequently overlooked aspect of the total testing process. Standardization and monitoring preanalytical variables is of foremost importance and is associated with the most efficient and well-organized laboratories, resulting in reduced operational costs and increased revenues. As such, this article is aimed at providing readers with significant updates on the total quality management of the preanalytical phase to endeavour further improvement for patient safety throughout this phase of the total testing process.

The prevalence of preanalytical errors in a Croatian ISO 15189 accredited laboratory

BACKGROUND

The preanalytical phase is the most common source of laboratory errors. The goal of this descriptive study was to analyze the prevalence and type of preanalytical errors in relation to the site of sample collection (inpatient vs. outpatient) and the type of laboratory unit (hematology and coagulation vs. biochemistry). For the biochemistry unit, the data were also analyzed relative to the type of the analysis (stat vs. routine).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the sample and test request form error rate for a 1-year period, from January to December 2008.

RESULTS

The frequency of the sample errors differed significantly between the emergency and routine biochemistry unit (0.69% vs. 2.14%; p<0.0001), and between inpatients and outpatients (1.12% vs. 1.36%; p=0.0006). Hemolysis was the most frequent sample error, accounting for 65% of all unsuitable specimens in the emergency biochemistry unit. The total sample error rate did not differ between hematology and coagulation vs. the biochemistry unit. The frequency of test request form errors differed significantly with respect to the sample collection site (p<0.0001), laboratory unit (p<0.0001) and type of the analysis (p<0.0001). Errors in the test request form were least frequent in the outpatient unit (2.98%) and most frequent in the routine biochemistry unit (65.94%).

CONCLUSIONS

Sample and test request form errors in our laboratory are occurring with a frequency comparable to that reported by others. Continuous educational action is needed for all stakeholders involved in laboratory testing to improve the quality of the preanalytical phase of the total testing process.