Quality Indicators in Laboratory Medicine: the status of the progress of IFCC Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" project.

The knowledge of error rates is essential in all clinical laboratories as it enables them to accurately identify their risk level, and compare it with those of other laboratories in order to evaluate their performance in relation to the State-of-the-Art (i.e. benchmarking) and define priorities for improvement actions. Although no activity is risk free, it is widely accepted that the risk of error is minimized by the use of Quality Indicators (QIs) managed as a part of laboratory improvement strategy and proven to be suitable monitoring and improvement tools. The purpose of QIs is to keep the error risk at a level that minimizes the likelihood of patients. However, identifying a suitable State-of-the-Art is challenging, because it calls for the knowledge of error rates measured in a variety of laboratories throughout world that differ in their organization and management, context, and the population they serve. Moreover, it also depends on the choice of the events to keep under control and the individual procedure for measurement. Although many laboratory professionals believe that the systemic use of QIs in Laboratory Medicine may be effective in decreasing errors occurring throughout the total testing process (TTP), to improve patient safety as well as to satisfy the requirements of International Standard ISO 15189, they find it difficult to maintain standardized and systematic data collection, and to promote continued high level of interest, commitment and dedication in the entire staff. Although many laboratories worldwide express a willingness to participate to the Model of QIs (MQI) project of IFCC Working Group "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety", few systematically enter/record their own results and/or use a number of QIs designed to cover all phases of the TTP. Many laboratories justify their inadequate participation in data collection of QIs by claiming that the number of QIs included in the MQI is excessive. However, an analysis of results suggests that QIs need to be split into further measurements. As the International Standard on Laboratory Accreditation and approved guidelines do not specify the appropriate number of QIs to be used in the laboratory, and the MQI project does not compel laboratories to use all the QIs proposed, it appears appropriate to include in the MQI all the indicators of apparent utility in monitoring critical activities. The individual laboratory should also be able to decide how many and which QIs can be adopted. In conclusion, the MQI project is proving to be an important tool that, besides providing the TTP error rate and spreading the importance of the use of QIs in enhancing patient safety, highlights critical aspects compromising the widespread and appropriate use of QIs.

Preanalytical errors in medical laboratories: a review of the available methodologies of data collection and analysis.

Preanalytical errors have previously been shown to contribute a significant proportion of errors in laboratory processes and contribute to a number of patient safety risks. Accreditation against ISO 15189:2012 requires that laboratory Quality Management Systems consider the impact of preanalytical processes in areas such as the identification and control of non-conformances, continual improvement, internal audit and quality indicators. Previous studies have shown that there is a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical quality indicators. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry Working Group on Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety has defined a number of quality indicators for the preanalytical stage, and the adoption of harmonized definitions will support interlaboratory comparisons and continual improvement. There are a variety of data collection methods, including audit, manual recording processes, incident reporting mechanisms and laboratory information systems. Quality management processes such as benchmarking, statistical process control, Pareto analysis and failure mode and effect analysis can be used to review data and should be incorporated into clinical governance mechanisms. In this paper, The Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine PreAnalytical Specialist Interest Group review the various data collection methods available. Our recommendation is the use of the laboratory information management systems as a recording mechanism for preanalytical errors as this provides the easiest and most standardized mechanism of data capture.

Most and Least Meaningful Learning Experiences in Marriage and Family Therapy Education.

Marriage and family therapy educators increasingly emphasize training competencies. What we know less about is what makes family therapy education meaningful to marriage and family therapy (MFT) graduate students and what does not. In this study, through an Internet survey, we explored the most and least meaningful learning experiences of 68 MFT graduate students and recent graduates of Commission on Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education-accredited programs. We used thematic analysis to identify and illustrate resulting themes, which included the importance of experiential and personal components to learning, the professor-student alliance, tying theory to practice, and the experiences of students with their clients, among others. We discuss the implications of these findings to support family therapy education and offer tentative suggestions for formative discussions both within and across programs. Video Abstract is found in the online version of the article.

Monitoring and reporting of preanalytical errors in laboratory medicine: the UK situation.

BACKGROUND: Most errors in the clinical laboratory occur in the preanalytical phase. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices in UK clinical laboratories. METHODS: A survey was sent on behalf of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Preanalytical Working Group (ACB-WG-PA) to all heads of department of clinical laboratories in the UK. The survey captured data on the analytical platform and Laboratory Information Management System in use; which preanalytical errors were recorded and how they were classified and gauged interest in an external quality assurance scheme for preanalytical errors. RESULTS: Of the 157 laboratories asked to participate, responses were received from 104 (66.2%). Laboratory error rates were recorded per number of specimens, rather than per number of requests in 51% of respondents. Aside from serum indices for haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia, which were measured in 80% of laboratories, the most common errors recorded were booking-in errors (70.1%) and sample mislabelling (56.9%) in laboratories who record preanalytical errors. Of the laboratories surveyed, 95.9% expressed an interest in guidance on recording preanalytical error and 91.8% expressed interest in an external quality assurance scheme. CONCLUSIONS: This survey observes a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical errors in the UK. Data indicate there is a lot of interest in improving preanalytical data collection. The ACB-WG-PA aims to produce guidance and support for laboratories to standardize preanalytical data collection and to help establish and validate an external quality assurance scheme for interlaboratory comparison.

Safety and activity of BTK inhibitor ibrutinib combined with ofatumumab in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a phase 1b/2 study.

Ibrutinib represents a therapeutic advance in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) but as monotherapy produces few complete remissions in previously treated patients. Anti-CD20 antibodies have improved response and progression-free survival (PFS) when combined with chemotherapy. We evaluated the safety and activity of adding ofatumumab to ibrutinib in 3 different administration sequences. Patients with CLL/small lymphocytic lymphoma (SLL), prolymphocytic leukemia, or Richter's transformation who failed ≥2 prior therapies were enrolled. Patients received ibrutinib 420 mg daily and 12 doses of ofatumumab 300/2000 mg in 3 schedules: ibrutinib lead-in (group 1; n = 27), concurrent start (group 2; n = 20), or ofatumumab lead-in (group 3; n = 24). Seventy-one patients were treated; most had high-risk disease including del(17)(p13.1) (44%) or del(11)(q22.3) (31%). The most frequent adverse events (any grade) were diarrhea (70%), infusion-related reaction (45%), and peripheral sensory neuropathy (44%). Overall response rates in CLL/SLL patients (n = 66) were 100%, 79%, and 71% in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Estimated 12-month PFSs for all patients were 89%, 85%, and 75%, respectively. Four patients in group 3 progressed prior to receiving ibrutinib. This study demonstrates the tolerability and clinical activity of this combination with quicker time to best response than single-agent ibrutinib and with durable responses. This trial was registered at www.clinicaltrials.gov as #NCT01217749.

Personality research on the Internet: a comparison of Web-based and traditional instruments in take-home and in-class settings.

Students, faculty, and researchers have become increasingly comfortable with the Internet, and many of them are interested in using the Web to collect data. Few published studies have investigated the differences between Web-based data and data collected with more traditional methods. In order to investigate these potential differences, two important factors were crossed in this study: whether the data were collected on line or not and whether the data were collected in a group setting at a fixed time or individually at a time of the respondent's choosing. The Visions of Morality scale (Shelton & McAdams, 1990) was used, and the participants were assigned to one of four conditions: in-class Web survey, in-class paper-and-pencil survey; take-home Web survey, and take-home paper-and-pencil survey. No significant differences in scores were found for any condition; however, response rates were affected by the type of survey administered, with the take-home Web-based instrument having the lowest response rate. Therefore, researchers need to be aware that different modes of administration may affect subject attrition and may, therefore, confound investigations of other independent variables.