Ledesma MVM, Ascencio TRG, Larráz RKK, Santos LLE, Sígala AR, Ascencio TCM, Pérez GHR

Language: Spanish
References: 7
Page: 163-168
PDF size: 265.35 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to evaluate errors in the phases of clinical pathology laboratory, information of vital importance for the correct implementation of processes. Objective: Evaluate the errors in the process of the Laboratory of Clinical Pathology of the Meritorious Old Civil Hospital of Guadalajara «Fray Antonio Alcalde». Method: Observational, analytical, prospective cohort study of April to June 2015. Results: The analysis and evaluation of the results 242,036 requests, 1,159 were used for the analysis, 306 of them incomplete data were obtained. In the pre-analytical phase the highest error rate, it was filling date with 11.1%, the hospital record whit 10.5%, and the number of bed with 8%. To others, phlebotomy was incorrect, emphasizing transport water-ice, and the puncture site disinfection at 100% and 99.65% of cases respectively. In the analytical phase 0.3% of samples were not processed by being mislabeled, 0.5% were unfit and 5.3% were not performed due to lack of reagent. In the post-analytical phase 1.3% of the samples could not be validated, of these 0.9% were found with critical values. A great strength of this work is that in 99.65% of cases, the results were in values within the normal range. Conclusions: There are errors in the 3 phases of clinical pathology laboratory (BAHCGFAA). Pre-analytical phase error is most prevalent in the process, the pre-analytical phase located at 1.15: 242 requests in order of frequency are: date, registration number, bed number, age, gender (sex), and diagnosis respectively. Phlebotomy is wrong with a frequency of 100% in the transport of specimens and a 99.65% in the disinfection of the puncture site. Analytical phase has fewer errors in their processes, lack of reagent and error randomization (random) are respectively the most frequent. In the post-analytical phase the 99.65% of the samples are within normal range, 0.9% were reported as critical values and were not reported by any means.

REFERENCES

1. Plebani M. Errors in clinical laboratorios or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med. 2006; 44 (6): 750-759.

2. Corres RC, Arderiu XF. Errores en el laboratorio clínico. Errores en el Laboratorio Clínico. Disponible en: www.ifcc.org

3. Vítolo F. Laboratorio de Análisis Clínicos: Errores más Frecuentes y Manejo de Riesgos. Biblioteca Virtual NOBLE Febrero 2010. Disponible en: www.nobleseguros.com/ARTICULOS_NOBLE/46.pdf

4. Wallin O, Söderberg J. Van Guelpen B, Stenlund H, Grankvist K, Brulin C. Blood sample collection and patient identification demand improvement: a questionnaire study of pre-analytical practices in hospital wards and laboratories. Scand J Caring Sci. 2010; 24 (3): 581-591.

5. Chhillar N, Khurana S, Agarwal R, Singh NK. Effect of pre-analytical errors on quality of laboratory medicine at a neuropsychiatry institute in North India. Indian J Clin Biochem. 2011; 26 (1): 46-49.

6. Álvarez V, Llopis MA, Alsina MJ. Garantía de la calidad de la fase preanalítica. Ed Cont Lab Clin. 2009;12: 61-69.

7. Barba EJ. Contribución del laboratorio clínico en la seguridad de los pacientes. Rev Latinoam Patol Clin Med Lab. 2014; 61 (1): 11-23.