Fri, Nov 22, 2024
Volume 17, Issue 1 (Jan-Feb 2023)
mljgoums 2023, 17(1): 1-5 |
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:
Bikorimana J, Ingabire J, Arinaitwe A, Cyuzuzo P. Determination of the Rate and Reasons of Blood Sample Rejection in the Pre-Analytical Phase in Ruhengeri, Rwanda: A Single Center Study. mljgoums 2023; 17 (1) :1-5
URL: http://mlj.goums.ac.ir/article-1-1490-en.html
URL: http://mlj.goums.ac.ir/article-1-1490-en.html
1- Department of Biomedical Laboratory Sciences, PRIMO Clinic, Gasabo, Rwanda , jonasbikorimana@gmail.com
2- Department of Biomedical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Applied Fundamental Sciences, INES-Ruhengeri, Musanze-Rwanda
3- Department of Biomedical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Applied Fundamental Sciences, INES-Ruhengeri, Ruhengeri, Rwanda
2- Department of Biomedical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Applied Fundamental Sciences, INES-Ruhengeri, Musanze-Rwanda
3- Department of Biomedical Laboratory Sciences, Faculty of Applied Fundamental Sciences, INES-Ruhengeri, Ruhengeri, Rwanda
Abstract: (2690 Views)
Background and objectives: All three phases of laboratory testing are equally important for improving total quality management, but the pre-analytical phase is the most error-prone. This study aimed to determine the rate and reasons for blood sample rejection in the pre-analytical phase of laboratory testing in a referral hospital in Ruhengeri, Rwanda.
Methods: This study was a cross-sectional and retrospective study in which 222 samples with nonconformities were discovered from 19,775 clinical samples. Various data related to the rejected samples were recorded along with nonconformities.
Results: The rate of blood sample rejection was 1.045% and 1.165% for the cross-sectional and retrospective approaches, respectively. The overall blood sample rejection rate was 1.105%. The most frequent error in the cross-sectional aspect was mislabeling (38.3%), while clotting (46.4%) was the most common cause of sample rejection in the retrospective aspect.
Conclusion: Based on the results of our study, the rate of blood sample rejection is high in the study area. Thus, there should be a laboratory policy for error record keeping as well as a settlement in “laboratory sentinel events” covering the total testing process.
Methods: This study was a cross-sectional and retrospective study in which 222 samples with nonconformities were discovered from 19,775 clinical samples. Various data related to the rejected samples were recorded along with nonconformities.
Results: The rate of blood sample rejection was 1.045% and 1.165% for the cross-sectional and retrospective approaches, respectively. The overall blood sample rejection rate was 1.105%. The most frequent error in the cross-sectional aspect was mislabeling (38.3%), while clotting (46.4%) was the most common cause of sample rejection in the retrospective aspect.
Conclusion: Based on the results of our study, the rate of blood sample rejection is high in the study area. Thus, there should be a laboratory policy for error record keeping as well as a settlement in “laboratory sentinel events” covering the total testing process.
Research Article: Research Article |
Subject:
Laboratory Sciences
Received: 2022/03/2 | Accepted: 2022/07/9 | Published: 2023/01/20 | ePublished: 2023/01/20
Received: 2022/03/2 | Accepted: 2022/07/9 | Published: 2023/01/20 | ePublished: 2023/01/20
References
1. Saurav PM, Mukherjee B, Das AK. Pre-analytical errors in the clinical laboratory and how to minimize them. Int J Bioassays. 2013; 2(3):551-553. [Google Scholar]
2. Alavi N, Khan SH, Saadia A, Naeem T. Challenges in Preanalytical Phase of Laboratory Medicine: Rate of Blood Sample Nonconformity in a Tertiary Care Hospital. EJIFCC. 2020 20;31(1):21-27. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
3. Lima-Oliveira G, Volanski W, Lippi G, Picheth G, Guidi GC. Pre-analytical phase management: a review of the procedures from patient preparation to laboratory analysis. Scand J Clin Lab Invest. 2017 ;77(3):153-163. [DOI:10.1080/00365513.2017.1295317] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
4. Giavarina D, Lippi G. Blood venous sample collection: Recommendations overview and a checklist to improve quality. Clin Biochem. 2017 ;50(10-11):568-573. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2017.02.021] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
5. Da Rin G. Pre-analytical workstations: a tool for reducing laboratory errors. Clin Chim Acta. 2009 ;404(1):68-74. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1016/j.cca.2009.03.024] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
6. West J, Atherton J, Costelloe SJ, Pourmahram G, Stretton A, Cornes M. Preanalytical errors in medical laboratories: a review of the available methodologies of data collection and analysis. Ann Clin Biochem. 2017 ;54(1):14-19. [DOI:10.1177/0004563216669384] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
7. Plebani M. Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006;44(6):750-9. [DOI:10.1515/CCLM.2006.123] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
8. Lombardi G, Lanteri P, Colombini A, Banfi G. Blood biochemical markers of bone turnover: pre-analytical and technical aspects of sample collection and handling. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2012 3;50(5):771-89. [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2011-0614] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
9. Almatrafi AA. Preanalytical Errors: A Major Issue in Medical Laboratory. Acta Scientific Medical Science. 2019; 3(2):93-95. [Google Scholar]
10. Marin AG, Rivas-Ruiz F, Del Mar Pérez-Hidalgo M, Molina-Mendoza P. Pre-analytical errors management in the clinical laboratory: a five-year study. Biochemia medica. 2014; 24(2):248-257. doi: 10.11613/BM.2014.027. [DOI:10.11613/BM.2014.027] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
11. Rusanganwa V, Gahutu JB, Nzabahimana I, Ngendakabaniga JMV, Hurtig AK, Evander M. Clinical referral laboratories in Rwanda: the status of quality improvement after 7 years of the SLMTA program. American Journal of Clinical Pathology. 2018; 150(3):240-245. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1093/ajcp/aqy047] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
12. Magwai T, Warasally Z, Naidoo N, Gounden V. Reducing sample rejection in Durban, South Africa. Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. 2021; 59(4):687-692. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1515/cclm-2020-0827] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
13. 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. Biochemia medica. 2014; 24(3):376-382. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.11613/BM.2014.040] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
14. Chawla R, Goswami B, Tayal D, Mallika V. Identification of the types of preanalytical errors in the clinical chemistry laboratory: 1-year study at GB Pant Hospital. Laboratory Medicine. 2010; 41(2):89-92. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1309/LM9JXZBMLSVJT9RK] [Google Scholar]
15. Najat D. Prevalence of pre-analytical errors in clinical chemistry diagnostic labs in Sulaimani city of Iraqi Kurdistan. Plos One. 2017; 12(1):170-211. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0170211] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
16. Plebani M. Quality indicators to detect pre-analytical errors in laboratory testing. The Clinical Biochemist Reviews. 2012; 33(3):85-89. [View at Publisher] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
17. Mazzocca AD, McCarthy MBR, Chowaniec DM, Cote MP, Romeo AA, Bradley JP, Beitzel K. Platelet-rich plasma differs according to preparation method and human variability. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. 2016; 94(4):308-316. [View at Publisher] [DOI:10.2106/JBJS.K.00430] [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.