The influence of undetected hemolysis on POCT potassium results in the emergency department.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate discrepancies in potassium measurements between point-of-care testing (POCT) and central laboratory (CL) methods, focusing on the impact of hemolysis on these measurements and its impact in the clinical practice in the emergency department (ED). METHODS: A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from three European university hospitals: Technische Universitat Munchen (Germany), Hospital Universitario La Paz (Spain), and Erasmus University Medical Center (The Netherlands). The study compared POCT potassium measurements in EDs with CL measurements. Data normalization was performed in categories for potassium levels (kalemia) and hemolysis. The severity of discrepancies between POCT and CL potassium measurements was assessed using the reference change value (RCV). RESULTS: The study identified significant discrepancies in potassium between POCT and CL methods. In comparing POCT normo- and mild hypokalemia against CL results, differences of -4.20 % and +4.88 % were noted respectively. The largest variance in the CL was a +4.14 % difference in the mild hyperkalemia category. Additionally, the RCV was calculated to quantify the severity of discrepancies between paired potassium measurements from POCT and CL methods. The overall hemolysis characteristics, as defined by the hemolysis gradient, showed considerable variation between the testing sites, significantly affecting the reliability of potassium measurements in POCT. CONCLUSIONS: The study highlighted the challenges in achieving consistent potassium measurement results between POCT and CL methods, particularly in the presence of hemolysis. It emphasised the need for integrated hemolysis detection systems in future blood gas analysis devices to minimise discrepancies and ensure accurate POCT results.

Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) at the preanalytical phase for POCT blood gas analysis: proposal for a shared proactive risk analysis model.

OBJECTIVES: Proposal of a risk analysis model to diminish negative impact on patient care by preanalytical errors in blood gas analysis (BGA). METHODS: Here we designed a Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) risk assessment template for BGA, based on literature references and expertise of an international team of laboratory and clinical health care professionals. RESULTS: The FMEA identifies pre-analytical process steps, errors that may occur whilst performing BGA (potential failure mode), possible consequences (potential failure effect) and preventive/corrective actions (current controls). Probability of failure occurrence (OCC), severity of failure (SEV) and probability of failure detection (DET) are scored per potential failure mode. OCC and DET depend on test setting and patient population e.g., they differ in primary community health centres as compared to secondary community hospitals and third line university or specialized hospitals. OCC and DET also differ between stand-alone and networked instruments, manual and automated patient identification, and whether results are automatically transmitted to the patient's electronic health record. The risk priority number (RPN = SEV × OCC × DET) can be applied to determine the sequence in which risks are addressed. RPN can be recalculated after implementing changes to decrease OCC and/or increase DET. Key performance indicators are also proposed to evaluate changes. CONCLUSIONS: This FMEA model will help health care professionals manage and minimize the risk of preanalytical errors in BGA.