The quality of the extra-analytical phase of laboratory practice in some developing European countries and Mexico - a multicentric study

• Type: Article in International Scientific Journal
• Date: 2011

Authors

simundic, am (Author) Other; bilic-zulle, l (Author) Other; nikolac, n (Author) Other; supak-smolcic, v (Author) Other; honovic, l (Author) Other; avram, s (Author) Other; beregovaja, e (Author) Other; dobreanu, m (Author) Other; guimaraes, jt (Author) FMUP; kovacs, gl (Author) Other; singh, nm (Author) Other; sierra-amor, ri (Author) Other; sypniewska, g (Author) Other; zima, t (Author) Other

Journal

Title: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

Vol. 49

Pages: 215-228

ISSN: 1434-6621

Publisher: Walter De Gruyter

Indexing

ISI Web of Knowledge - 24 Citations

Scopus - 24 Citations

Scientific classification

FOS: Engineering and technology > Medical engineering

Other information

Authenticus ID: P-002-V76

DOI: 10.1515/cclm.2011.034

Abstract (EN): Background: This cross-sectional multicentric survey study aimed to assess the quality of the extra-analytical phase of laboratory activities in some developing European countries and Mexico. We assessed the quality of the extra-analytical practices in participating laboratories regarding the: a) sample acceptance criteria; b) phlebotomy procedures; c) test results reporting and d) recording non-conformities. Methods: A survey was performed during the April-May 2009. A total of 15 clinical laboratories from the following countries were included: Bosnia, Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia and Ukraine. Questions were scored (scores from 1-4) and average scores was calculated for each category. Results: The overall score for all respondents (n=443) was 3.10 +/- 0.33. The average score was 3.11 +/- 0.56 for sample acceptance criteria, 2.76 +/- 0.58 for phlebotomy and 3.34 +/- 0.53, for test results reporting (F=116.49; p < 0.001). Laboratory accreditation was associated with better practices and higher overall quality of the extra-analytical procedures (F=16.62; p < 0.001). Moreover, the highest scores for sample acceptance criteria (F=8.32; p < 0.001), phlebotomy procedures (F=13.28; p < 0.001) and for reporting non-conformities (F=33.62; p < 0.001) were observed for accredited laboratories or laboratories under preparation for accreditation. Conclusions: The overall quality of the extra-analytical practices in countries in this survey is not satisfactory. Phlebotomy practices are the most critical extra-analytical activity. Since laboratory accreditation was associated with better practices and higher overall quality of the extra-analytical procedures, we believe that the most significant improvement could be made by implementing the total quality management system and standardizing laboratory procedures.

Language: English

Type (Professor's evaluation): Scientific

No. of pages: 14