ABSTRACT
Serum proteins and urinary proteins electrophoresis are useful biological tests. They are often prescribed for the screening of monoclonal gammopathys and also during follow-up for treatment response. This test can be accredited according to standard NF ISO 15189 since laboratories use analysers and adapted reagents, but there are numerous protocols for the method validation. This paper present the results of a survey proposed in 2019 to biologists by CNBH and SFBC. The aim of this survey is to give biologists a choice among several protocols that have been positively evaluated by COFRAC.
Subject(s)
Accreditation , Blood Chemical Analysis/standards , Electrophoresis/standards , Laboratories/standards , Urinalysis/standards , Blood Chemical Analysis/methods , Blood Proteins/analysis , Blood Proteins/chemistry , Choice Behavior , Diagnostic Tests, Routine/standards , Electrophoresis/methods , Humans , Laboratory Proficiency Testing/methods , Proteinuria/diagnosis , Proteinuria/urine , Quality Control , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Sensitivity and Specificity , Surveys and Questionnaires , Urinalysis/methods , Validation Studies as TopicABSTRACT
Biological examinations are essential for clinicians' medical care. The aim of this study is to assess clinicians' expectations in healthcare facilities and their perception of medical biology in different types of organization. We performed a prospective transversal study by electronic questionnaire conducted among 242 practitioners in four healthcare facilities. The aspects explored were as follows: quality, reliability, rendering time of examination results and biology platform support. Analyses were conducted after rectification of the sample by weight. Sixty one clinicians responded (25.2% [19.7-30.7]). The rendering time of examination is the main criterion mentioned with a requirement of less than one hour in case of emergency (81.5% [71.8-91.2] of the answers) to less than 72 hours for specialized examinations (81.5% [71.8-91.2] of the answers). Better collaboration with biologists is expected by clinicians (54.7% [50.9-58.5]). Satisfaction with the biology platform support and rendering time of emergency cases results was significantly (p <0.005) lower in facilities without an on-site laboratory. In conclusion, although medical biology performance is generally satisfactory within medical facilities, it remains nonetheless affected when the laboratory is not on site. The rendering time of examination, depending on the biology platform support functions and the proximity of the laboratory, remains the main criterion. Clinician-biologist collaboration, which increases of the medico-economic efficiency of patient's healthcare, appears as an essential criterion in a structural conception of medical biology.
Subject(s)
Attitude of Health Personnel , Medical Laboratory Science/organization & administration , Perception , Physicians/psychology , Adult , Clinical Laboratory Techniques/standards , Cross-Sectional Studies , Emergencies , Female , Humans , Internet , Male , Medical Laboratory Science/standards , Middle Aged , Point-of-Care Testing/organization & administration , Point-of-Care Testing/standards , Surveys and QuestionnairesABSTRACT
We have assessed turnaround time (TAT) for urgent laboratory analysis. Twelve hospital laboratories participated to this study. All laboratories have organized a classification of a management system of urgent analyses. The TAT reporting were relatively homogeneous for 12 laboratories. We have defined TAT as time of specimen receipt in the laboratory to time of results reporting. This TAT divides into 4 groups: close to 50 minutes for analyses as TP, D-dimeres, CRP (C Protein Reactive), HCG, troponin, alcoholhemia, K, lipase; 35 minutes for the cytology of cerebrospinal fluid; 25 minutes for complete blood cell count and 15 minutes for blood gases. All laboratories have accepted to TAT as a quality indicator. Quality indicator data should be collected in time to identify and correct problems to implemente effective interventions and to standardize processes among clinical laboratories.
