Tue, Nov 26, 2024
Volume 15, Issue 6 (Special issue (Nov-Dec) 2021)
mljgoums 2021, 15(6): 38-43 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Keski̇n A, Aci R, Arslanbek Erdem M, Ari M. Evaluation of Rejection Rates and Reasons among Specimens Taken from Different Hospital Units. mljgoums 2021; 15 (6) :38-43
URL: http://mlj.goums.ac.ir/article-1-1398-en.html
URL: http://mlj.goums.ac.ir/article-1-1398-en.html
1- Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Medicine Biochemistry,Aydın,Turkey , ademkeskin78@gmail.com
2- Health Sciences University, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Department of Biochemistry, , Samsun, Turkey
3- Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Medicine Biochemistry,Aydın, Turkey
2- Health Sciences University, Samsun Training and Research Hospital, Department of Biochemistry, , Samsun, Turkey
3- Aydin Adnan Menderes University, Institute of Health Sciences, Department of Medicine Biochemistry,Aydın, Turkey
Abstract: (2257 Views)
Background and objectives: In recent years, analytical error rates in medical laboratories have decreased significantly. It has been demonstrated that the majority of errors occur outside of the laboratory in the pre-analytical and post-analytical phases. Our study aimed to evaluate the specimen rejections that occur for various reasons in the central clinical laboratory of a teaching hospital.
Methods: The study included all specimens (emergency and routine) that were sent from different units of the hospital to the central laboratory between January and December 2019.
Results: Based on the results, 3483 (0.27%) out of 1,307,013 specimens were rejected. The rejection rate was highest for specimens from the intensive care unit (0.69%) and lowest for specimens from the outpatient clinic (0.18%). The specimen rejection rate was 0.42% and 0.22% for specimens from the service unit and emergency department, respectively. The rejection rate for specimens from the intensive care unit was significantly higher than that for specimens from the emergency department (p<0.001), outpatient clinic (p<0.001), and service unit (p=0.010). Although the number of specimens from the intensive care unit was lowest, it had the highest rate of specimen rejection. In our study, most analysis requests were from the outpatient clinic. However, the specimen rejection rate was lowest in this unit.
Conclusion: The results indicate that the reasons for specimen rejection may be influenced by the health status of the patient rather than the patient population.
Methods: The study included all specimens (emergency and routine) that were sent from different units of the hospital to the central laboratory between January and December 2019.
Results: Based on the results, 3483 (0.27%) out of 1,307,013 specimens were rejected. The rejection rate was highest for specimens from the intensive care unit (0.69%) and lowest for specimens from the outpatient clinic (0.18%). The specimen rejection rate was 0.42% and 0.22% for specimens from the service unit and emergency department, respectively. The rejection rate for specimens from the intensive care unit was significantly higher than that for specimens from the emergency department (p<0.001), outpatient clinic (p<0.001), and service unit (p=0.010). Although the number of specimens from the intensive care unit was lowest, it had the highest rate of specimen rejection. In our study, most analysis requests were from the outpatient clinic. However, the specimen rejection rate was lowest in this unit.
Conclusion: The results indicate that the reasons for specimen rejection may be influenced by the health status of the patient rather than the patient population.
Research Article: Research Article |
Subject:
Biochemistry
Received: 2021/06/28 | Accepted: 2021/10/10 | Published: 2021/10/18 | ePublished: 2021/10/18
Received: 2021/06/28 | Accepted: 2021/10/10 | Published: 2021/10/18 | ePublished: 2021/10/18
References
1. Dasgupta A, Sepulveda JL. Accurate Results in the Clinical Laboratory A Guide to Error Detection and Correction. In: Sepulveda JL, eds. Chapter 1 - Variation, Errors, and Quality in the Clinical Laboratory. ISBN: 978-0-12-415783-5. Elsevier; 2013. pp. 1-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/B978-0-12-415783-5.00001-3] [Google Scholar]
2. Plebani M. The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem. 2010 ;47(Pt 2):101-10. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1258/acb.2009.009222] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Plebani M. Quality indicators to detect pre-analytical errors in laboratory testing. Clin Biochem Rev. 2012 ;33(3):85-8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Padoan A, Chiozza ML. Quality indicators to detect pre-analytical errors in laboratory testing. Clin Chim Acta. 2014 15;432:44-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.cca.2013.07.033] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Plebani M, Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Pelloso M, Chiozza ML. Performance criteria and quality indicators for the pre-analytical phase. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2015 ;53(6):943-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2014-1124] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. Hawkins R. Managing the pre- and post-analytical phases of the total testing process. Ann Lab Med. 2012 ;32(1):5-16. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.3343/alm.2012.32.1.5] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Ricos C, Garcia-Victoria M, De la Fuente B. Quality indicators and specifications for the extra-analytical phases in clinical laboratory management. Clin Chem Lab Med 2004; 42:578-82. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1515/CCLM.2004.100] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Kirchner MJ, Funes VA, Adzet CB, Clar MV, Escuer MI, Girona JM, et al. Quality indicators and specifications for key processes in clinical laboratories: a preliminary experience. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(5):672-7. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1515/CCLM.2007.122] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Alsina MJ, Alvarez V, Barba N, Bullich S, Cortés M, Escoda I, et al. Preanalytical quality control program - an overview of results (2001-2005 summary). Clin Chem Lab Med. 2008;46(6):849-54. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1515/CCLM.2008.168] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
10. Simundic AM, Baird G, Cadamuro J, Costelloe SJ, Lippi G. Managing hemolyzed samples in clinical laboratories. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci. 2020 ;57(1):1-21. [DOI:10.1080/10408363.2019.1664391] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Messeri G, Ottomano C, Pansini N, Bonini P. Laboratory network of excellence: enhancing patient safety and service effectiveness. Clin Chem Lab Med 2006; 44:150-60. [DOI:10.1515/CCLM.2006.028] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Lippi G, Bassi A, Brocco G, Montagnana M, Salvagno GL, Guidi GC. Preanalytic error tracking in a laboratory medicine department: results of a 1-year experience. Clin Chem. 2006 ;52(7):1442-3. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1373/clinchem.2006.069534] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. Chiku C, Zolfo M, Senkoro M, Mabhala M, Tweya H, Musasa P, et al. Common causes of EID sample rejection in Zimbabwe and how to mitigate them. PLoS One. 2019 8;14(8):e0210136. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0210136] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Atay A, Demir L, Cuhadar S, Saglam G, Unal H, Aksun S, et al. Clinical biochemistry laboratory rejection rates due to various types of preanalytical errors. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2014 15;24(3):376-82. [DOI:10.11613/BM.2014.040] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
15. Magwai T, Warasally Z, Naidoo N, Gounden V. Reducing sample rejection in Durban, South Africa. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2020 20:2020-0827. [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2020-0827] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Cao L, Chen M, Phipps RA, Del Guidice RE, Handy BC, Wagar EA, et al. Causes and impact of specimen rejection in a clinical chemistry laboratory. Clinica Chimica Acta. 2016; 458: 154-8. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.cca.2016.05.003] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
Enamad
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.