Reaching consensus on communication of critical laboratory results using a collective intelligence method.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus in the literature about what analytes or values should be informed as critical results and how they should be communicated. The main aim of this project is to establish consensual standards of critical results for the laboratories participating in the study. Among the project's secondary objectives, establishing consensual procedures for communication can be highlighted. METHODS: Consensus was reached among all participating laboratories establishing the basis for the construction of the initial model put forward for consensus in conjunction with the clinicians. A real-time Delphi, methodology "health consensus" (HC), with motivating and participative questions was applied. The physician was expected to choose a numeric value within a scale designed for each analyte. RESULTS: The medians of critical results obtained represent the consensus on critical results for outpatient and inpatient care. Both in primary care and in hospital care a high degree of consensus was observed for critical values proposed in the analysis of creatinine, digoxin, phosphorus, glucose, international normalized ratio (INR), leukocytes, magnesium, neutrophils, chloride, sodium, calcium and lithium. For the rest of critical results the degree of consensus obtained was "medium high". The results obtained showed that in 72% of cases the consensual critical value coincided with the medians initially proposed by the laboratories. CONCLUSIONS: The real-time Delphi has allowed obtaining consensual standards for communication of critical results among the laboratories participating in the study, which can serve as a basis for other organizations.

Evaluación multicéntrica de materiales para el control de calidad de los índices séricos / Multicenter evaluation of materials for the quality control of the serum indexes

Introducción. La hemólisis, la turbidez y la presencia de concentraciones elevadas de bilirrubina son las fuentes de interferencia más frecuentes en el laboratorio clínico. Muchos analizadores incorporan sistemas de detección de estos interferentes denominados «índices séricos» de hemólisis, ictericia y lipidemia. El grado de veracidad de los índices no suele ser verificado por la dificultad en conseguir materiales de referencia adecuados. En este trabajo se presentan los resultados de un estudio interlaboratorios de los índices hemólisis, ictericia y lipidemia empleando materiales de referencia con concentraciones conocidas de los interferentes. Material y métodos. En el estudio han participado los laboratorios clínicos de 10 centros con 7 analizadores distintos. Los materiales de referencia de índices séricos contenían concentraciones conocidas de bilirrubina, hemoglobina (hemolisado) y triglicéridos (Intralipid). Resultados. Todos los instrumentos proporcionaron resultados aceptables para el índice de ictericia y de hemólisis. Entre los analizadores que dan valores cuantitativos se encontraron resultados bajos en uno de los analizadores para los materiales que contenían Intralipid. Los analizadores que expresan el resultado en forma de un intervalo proporcionaron resultados correctos para los materiales con turbidez menor y bajos para el material con turbidez mayor. Conclusiones. Los materiales de referencia utilizados han demostrado su utilidad para verificar los índices séricos de ictericia, hemólisis y lipidemia en los analizadores. Generalmente los índices proporcionados por los instrumentos concuerdan entre sí y con los valores asignados. Las diferencias más importantes entre analizadores se encuentran en el índice de lipidemia (AU)

Introduction. Hemolysis, turbidity and the presence of high concentrations of bilirubin are the most frequent sources of interference in the clinical laboratory. Many analyzers incorporate detection systems for these interferents called “serum indexes” of hemolysis, icterus and lipidemia. The accuracy of such indexes is usually not verified by the difficulty in obtaining appropriate reference materials. In this work we show the results of an interlaboratory study of hemolysis, icterus and lipidemia indexes using reference materials containing known concentrations of these interfering substances. Material and methods. Ten clinical laboratories from different centres have participated in the study using 7 different analyzers. The reference materials for the serum indexes contained known concentrations of bilirubin, hemoglobin (hemolysate) and triglycerides (Intralipid). Results. All instruments provided acceptable results for the icterus and hemolysis index. Among the analyzers providing quantitative values, low results were found in one of the analyzers for materials containing Intralipid. The analyzers expressing the result as an interval provided correct results for materials with low turbidity but a low result for the material with the highest turbidity. Conclusions. The reference materials used have proved to be useful to verify the serum indexes for hemolysis, icterus and lipidemia in analyzers. The results obtained in different instruments generally agree among them and with the assigned values. The most important differences between analyzers were found in the lipidemia index (AU)

Harmonization in hemolysis detection and prevention. A working group of the Catalonian Health Institute (ICS) experience.

BACKGROUND: Hemolysis is the main cause of non-quality samples in clinical laboratories, producing the highest percentage of rejections in the external assurance programs of preanalytical quality. The objective was to: 1) study the agreement between the detection methods and quantification of hemolysis; 2) establish comparable hemolysis interference limits for a series of tests and analytical methods; and 3) study the preanalytical variables which most influence hemolysis production. METHODS: Different hemoglobin concentration standards were prepared using the reference method. Agreement was studied between automated methods [hemolytic indexes (HI)] and reference method, as well as the interference according to hemolysis degree in various biochemical tests was measured. Preanalytical variables which could influence hemolysis production were studied: type of extraction, type of tubes, transport time, temperature and centrifugation conditions. RESULTS: Good agreement was obtained between hemoglobin concentrations measured using the reference method and HI, for the most of studied analyzers, particularly those giving quantitative HI. The hemolysis interference cut-off points obtained for the majority of tests studied (except LDH, K) are dependent on the method/analyzer utilized. Furthermore, discrepancies have been observed between interference limits recommended by the manufacturer. The preanalytical variables which produce a lower percentage of hemolysis rejections were: centrifugation at the extraction site, the use of lower volume tubes and a transport time under 15 min at room temperature. CONCLUSIONS: The setting of interference limits (cut-off) for each used test/method, and the study of preanalytical variability will assist to the results harmonization for this quality indicator.