Management of postanalytical processes in the clinical laboratory according to ISO 15189:2012 Standard requirements: considerations on the review, reporting and release of results.

The objective of this paper is to share some considerations about the management of postanalytical processes in relation to the review, reporting and release of test results in accordance with UNE-EN ISO 15189:2013 Standard requirements. The scope of this paper includes postanalytical activities and the personnel involved (laboratory management and staff). We describe the criteria and information required to review and validate analytical results and ensure that clear reports are sent to requesters. These criteria also guarantee that results are transcribed in a reliable way and that all necessary information is provided for the correct interpretation of results. Likewise, the requirements for the correct release of laboratory results are described, with special emphasis on the release of alarming or critical results. In some European countries, clinical laboratories are required to hold partial or full ISO 15189 accreditation, which is a global trend. Therefore, understanding ISO 15189 requirements is imperative for a progressive and more effective implementation of the Standard.

Management of post-analytical processes in the clinical laboratory according to ISO 15189:2012. Considerations about the management of clinical samples, ensuring quality of post-analytical processes, and laboratory information management.

ISO 15189:2012 establishes the requirements for clinical sample management, ensuring quality of process and laboratory information management. The accreditation authority, ENAC in Spain, established the requirements for the authorized use of the label in reports issued by accredited laboratories. These recommendations are applicable to the postanalytical processes and the professionals involved. The Standard requires laboratories to define and document the duration and conditions of sample retention. Laboratories are also required to design an internal quality control scheme to verify whether postanalytical activities attain the expected standards. Information management requirements are also established and laboratories are required to design a contingency plan to ensure the communication of laboratory results. Instructions are finally provided about the correct use of the accreditation label in laboratory reports. A range of nations and scientific societies support that clinical laboratories should be required to obtain accreditation. With ISO 15189 being the most specific standard for demonstrating technical performance, a clear understanding of its requirements is essential for proper implementation.

Assessment of a laboratory critical risk result notification protocol in a tertiary care hospital and their use in clinical decision making.

INTRODUCTION: Communication of laboratory critical risk results is essential for patient safety, as it allows early decision making. Our aims were: 1) to retrospectively evaluate the current protocol for telephone notification of critical risk results in terms of rates, efficiency and recipient satisfaction, 2) to assess their use in clinical decision making and 3) to suggest alternative tools for a better assessment of notification protocols. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The biochemical critical risk result notifications reported during 12 months by routine and STAT laboratories in a tertiary care hospital were reviewed. Total number of reports, time for the notification and main magnitudes with critical risk results were calculated. The use of notifications in clinical decision making was assessed by reviewing medical records. Satisfaction with the notification protocol was assessed through an online questionnaire to requesting physicians and nurses. RESULTS: Critical result was yielded by 0.1% of total laboratory tests. Median time for notification was 3.2 min (STAT) and 16.9 min (routine). The magnitudes with a greater number of critical results were glucose and potassium for routine analyses, and troponin, sodium for STAT. Most notifications were not reflected in the medical records. Overall mean satisfaction with the protocol was 4.2/5. CONCLUSION: The results obtained indicate that the current protocol is appropriate. Nevertheless, there are some limitations that hamper the evaluation of the impact on clinical decision making. Alternatives were proposed for a proper and precise evaluation.