Giménez-Marín Angeles, Rivas-Ruiz Francisco, Pérez-Hidalgo Maria Del Mar, Molina-Mendoza Pedro
Clinical Laboratory, Hospital de Antequera, Antequera, Málaga, Spain.
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014;24(2):248-57. doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.027. Epub 2014 Jun 15.
This study describes quality indicators for the pre-analytical process, grouping errors according to patient risk as critical or major, and assesses their evaluation over a five-year period.
A descriptive study was made of the temporal evolution of quality indicators, with a study population of 751,441 analytical requests made during the period 2007-2011. The Runs Test for randomness was calculated to assess changes in the trend of the series, and the degree of control over the process was estimated by the Six Sigma scale.
The overall rate of critical pre-analytical errors was 0.047%, with a Six Sigma value of 4.9. The total rate of sampling errors in the study period was 13.54% (P = 0.003). The highest rates were found for the indicators "haemolysed sample" (8.76%), "urine sample not submitted" (1.66%) and "clotted sample" (1.41%), with Six Sigma values of 3.7, 3.7 and 2.9, respectively.
The magnitude of pre-analytical errors was accurately valued. While processes that triggered critical errors are well controlled, the results obtained for those regarding specimen collection are borderline unacceptable; this is particularly so for the indicator "haemolysed sample".
本研究描述了分析前过程的质量指标,根据患者风险将误差分为严重或主要两类,并评估了其在五年期间的评估情况。
对质量指标的时间演变进行了描述性研究,研究人群为2007年至2011年期间提出的751441项分析请求。计算了随机性的游程检验以评估系列趋势的变化,并通过六西格玛量表估计过程的控制程度。
分析前严重误差的总体发生率为0.047%,六西格玛值为4.9。研究期间抽样误差的总发生率为13.54%(P = 0.003)。“溶血样本”(8.76%)、“未提交尿液样本”(1.66%)和“凝血样本”(1.41%)指标的发生率最高,六西格玛值分别为3.7、3.7和2.9。
准确评估了分析前误差的大小。虽然引发严重误差的过程得到了很好的控制,但标本采集方面的结果几乎不可接受;“溶血样本”指标尤其如此。