In the 12 years since the publication of the first Consensus Paper of the WFSBP on biomarkers of neurodegenerative dementias, enormous advancement has taken place in the field, and the Task Force t...

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/15622975.2017.1375556

Cerebrospinal fluid and blood biomarkers for neurodegenerative dementias: An update of the Consensus of the Task Force on Biological Markers in Psychiatry of the World Federation of Societies of Biological Psychiatry

For many years, the clinical laboratory's focus on analytical quality has resulted in an error rate of 4-5 sigma, which surpasses most other areas in healthcare. However, greater appreciation of the prevalence of errors in the pre- and post-analytical phases and their potential for patient harm has led to increasing requirements for laboratories to take greater responsibility for activities outside their immediate control. Accreditation bodies such as the Joint Commission International (JCI) and the College of American Pathologists (CAP) now require clear and effective procedures for patient/sample identification and communication of critical results. There are a variety of free on-line resources available to aid in managing the extra-analytical phase and the recent publication of quality indicators and proposed performance levels by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC) working group on laboratory errors and patient safety provides particularly useful benchmarking data. Managing the extra-laboratory phase of the total testing cycle is the next challenge for laboratory medicine. By building on its existing quality management expertise, quantitative scientific background and familiarity with information technology, the clinical laboratory is well suited to play a greater role in reducing errors and improving patient safety outside the confines of the laboratory.

/pdf/managing-the-pre-and-post-analytical-phases-of-the-total-4cp2ent4li.pdf

Managing the pre- and post-analytical phases of the total testing process.

Total quality in laboratory medicine should be defined as the guarantee that each activity throughout the total testing process is correctly performed, providing valuable medical decision-making and effective patient care. In the past decades, a 10-fold reduction in the analytical error rate has been achieved thanks to improvements in both reliability and standardization of analytical techniques, reagents, and instrumentation. Notable advances in information technology, quality control and quality assurance methods have also assured a valuable contribution for reducing diagnostic errors. Nevertheless, several lines of evidence still suggest that most errors in laboratory diagnostics fall outside the analytical phase, and the pre- and postanalytical steps have been found to be much more vulnerable. This collective paper, which is the logical continuum of the former already published in this journal 2 years ago, provides additional contribution to risk management in the preanalytical phase and is a synopsis of the lectures of the 2nd European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)-Becton Dickinson (BD) European Conference on Preanalytical Phase meeting entitled "Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust" (Zagreb, Croatia, 1-2 March 2013). The leading topics that will be discussed include quality indicators for preanalytical phase, phlebotomy practices for collection of blood gas analysis and pediatric samples, lipemia and blood collection tube interferences, preanalytical requirements of urinalysis, molecular biology hemostasis and platelet testing, as well as indications on best practices for safe blood collection. Auditing of the preanalytical phase by ISO assessors and external quality assessment for preanalytical phase are also discussed.

/pdf/preanalytical-quality-improvement-in-quality-we-trust-1nen8urie3.pdf

Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust.

In the clinical laboratory setting, interferences can be a significant source of laboratory errors with potential to cause serious harm for the patient. After hemolysis, lipemia is the most frequent endogenous interference that can influence results of various laboratory methods by several mechanisms. The most common preanalytical cause of lipemic samples is inadequate time of blood sampling after the meal or parenteral administration of synthetic lipid emulsions. Although the best way of detecting the degree of lipemia is measuring lipemic index on analytical platforms, laboratory experts should be aware of its problems, like false positive results and lack of standardization between manufacturers. Unlike for other interferences, lipemia can be removed and measurement can be done in a clear sample. However, a protocol for removing lipids from the sample has to be chosen carefully, since it is dependent on the analytes that have to be determined. Investigation of lipemia interference is an obligation of manufacturers of laboratory reagents; however, several literature findings report lack of verification of the declared data. Moreover, the acceptance criteria currently used by the most manufacturers are not based on biological variation and need to be revised. Written procedures for detection of lipemia, removing lipemia interference and reporting results from lipemic samples should be available to laboratory staff in order to standardize the procedure, reduce errors and increase patient safety.

/pdf/lipemia-causes-interference-mechanisms-detection-and-4exi17yri4.pdf

Lipemia: causes, interference mechanisms, detection and management

Preanalytical activities, especially those directly connected with blood sample collection and handling, are the most vulnerable steps throughout the testing process. The receipt of unsuitable samples is commonplace in laboratory practice and represents a serious problem, given the reliability of test results can be adversely compromised following analysis of these specimens. The basic criteria for an appropriate and safe venipuncture are nearly identical to those used for collecting blood for clinical chemistry and immunochemistry testing, and entail proper patient identification, use of the correct technique, as well as appropriate devices and needles. There are, however, some peculiar aspects, which are deemed to be particularly critical when collecting quality specimens for clot-based tests, and these require clearer recognition. These include prevention of prolonged venous stasis, collection of nonhemolyzed specimens, order of draw, and appropriate filling and mixing of the primary collection tubes. All of these important preanalytical issues are discussed in this article, and evidence-based suggestions as well as recommendations on how to obtain a high-quality sample for coagulation testing are also illustrated. We have also performed an investigation aimed to identify variation of test results due to underfilling of primary blood tubes, and have identified a clinically significant bias in test results when tubes are drawn at less than 89% of total fill for activated partial thromboplastin time, less than 78% for fibrinogen, and less than 67% for coagulation factor VIII, whereas prothrombin time and activated protein C resistance remain relatively reliable even in tubes drawn at 67% of the nominal volume.

Quality standards for sample collection in coagulation testing.

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.

https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/cclm.2011.49.issue-7/cclm.2011.600/cclm.2011.600.xml

Preanalytical quality improvement: from dream to reality

Mutual impedance experiments are in situ plasma diagnostic techniques for the identification of the plasma density and the electron temperature. Different versions of mutual impedance instruments were included in past and present space missions (e.g., Rosetta, BepiColombo, JUICE and Comet Interceptor). New versions are currently being devised to fit the strong mass, volume and power constraints on nanosatellite platforms for future multi‐point space missions. In this study, our goal is to define and validate two new instrumental modes (i.e., chirp and multi‐spectral modes) to improve the time resolution of the experiment with respect to typical mutual impedance instrumental modes (i.e., frequency sweep). Higher time resolution measurements are expected to simplify the integration of mutual impedance experiments onboard nanosatellite platforms by facilitating antenna sharing between different experiments. The investigation is performed both (a) numerically, using a 1D‐1V electrostatic full kinetic Vlasov‐Poisson model and, (b) experimentally, with laboratory tests using a vacuum chamber and a plasma source. From a plasma diagnostic point of view, we find that both the chirp and multi‐spectral modes provide measurements identical to the (reference) frequency sweep mode. From an instrumental point of view, multi‐spectral measurements are faster than frequency sweep measurements but they require larger amounts of onboard computing resources (i.e., larger power consumption). Chirp measurements, instead, outperform frequency sweep measurements both in terms of measurement duration (20 times faster) and onboard processor usage (20% less).

Paola Dazzi

Papers

Preanalytical quality improvement: from dream to reality

Instrumentation for Ionized Space Environments: New High Time Resolution Instrumental Modes of Mutual Impedance Experiments