Pneumatic tube delivery system for blood samples reduces turnaround times without affecting sample quality.

STUDY OBJECTIVES: In this study, blood samples from ED patients that were delivered to the laboratory by a pneumatic tube delivery system and by a human courier were compared for timeliness and quality of results. METHODS: We studied all consecutive measurements of serum hemoglobin and potassium ordered from 2 emergency departments of a multisite tertiary care hospital system, one with a pneumatic tube system and the other using human couriers. Turnaround time was measured from the time that the test was ordered by the physician to the time the result was reported on the hospital information system. Hemolysis was measured with use of a standardized, validated method. ANALYSIS: Times were normalized by log transformation (ln [minutes + 1]), and a comparison of sites was conducted using analysis of variance. Hemolysis rates of the 2 delivery systems were compared by chi2. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in hemolysis rate between the 2 methods of delivery (7/121 [5.79%] with a pneumatic tube system and 20/200 [10%] with a human courier). When delivered with a pneumatic tube system, the mean turnaround times (with ranges) for both hemoglobin (33 minutes [4-230]) and potassium (64 [34-208]) were shorter than those delivered by a human courier (43 minutes [3-150] and 72 [28-213], respectively). CONCLUSION: The use of a pneumatic tube delivery system for transporting blood samples from the emergency department to the laboratory can significantly reduce the turnaround times of results without a reduction in sample quality.

Root cause analysis of laboratory turnaround times for patients in the emergency department.

INTRODUCTION: Laboratory investigations are essential to patient care and are conducted routinely in emergency departments (EDs). This study reports the turnaround times at an academic, tertiary care ED, using root cause analysis to identify potential areas of improvement. Our objectives were to compare the laboratory turnaround times with established benchmarks and identify root causes for delays. METHODS: Turnaround and process event times for a consecutive sample of hemoglobin and potassium measurements were recorded during an 8-day study period using synchronized time stamps. A log transformation (ln [minutes + 1]) was performed to normalize the time data, which were then compared with established benchmarks using one-sample t tests. RESULTS: The turnaround time for hemoglobin was significantly less than the established benchmark (n = 140, t = -5.69, p < 0.001) and that of potassium was significantly greater (n = 121, t = 12.65, p < 0.001). The hemolysis rate was 5.8%, with 0.017% of samples needing recollection. Causes of delays included order-processing time, a high proportion (43%) of tests performed on patients who had been admitted but were still in the ED waiting for a bed, and excessive laboratory process times for potassium. CONCLUSIONS: The turnaround time for hemoglobin (18 min) met the established benchmark, but that for potassium (49 min) did not. Root causes for delay were order-processing time, excessive queue and instrument times for potassium and volume of tests for admitted patients. Further study of these identified causes of delays is required to see whether laboratory TATs can be reduced.