Verification of automated review, release and reporting of results with assessment of the risk of harm for patients: the procedure algorithm proposal for clinical laboratories.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY
Marijana Miler, Nora Nikolac Gabaj, Gordan Šimić, Adriana Unić, Lara Milevoj Kopčinović, Marija Božović, Anita Radman, Alen Vrtarić, Mario Štefanović, Ines Vukasović
{"title":"Verification of automated review, release and reporting of results with assessment of the risk of harm for patients: the procedure algorithm proposal for clinical laboratories.","authors":"Marijana Miler, Nora Nikolac Gabaj, Gordan Šimić, Adriana Unić, Lara Milevoj Kopčinović, Marija Božović, Anita Radman, Alen Vrtarić, Mario Štefanović, Ines Vukasović","doi":"10.1515/cclm-2024-1164","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Autoverification increases the efficiency of laboratories. Laboratories accredited according to ISO 15189:2022 need to validate their processes, including autoverification, and assess the associated risks to patient safety. The aim of this study was to propose a systematic verification algorithm for autoverification and to assess its potential risks.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The study was conducted using retrospective data from the Laboratory Information System (LIS). Seven laboratory medicine specialists participated. Autoverification rules were defined for analytes in serum, stool, urine and whole blood determined on Alinity ci (Abbott), Atellica 1500 (Siemens) and ABL90 FLEX (Radiometer). Criteria included internal quality control results, instrument flags, hemolysis/icteria/lipemia indices, median patient values, critical values, measurement ranges, delta checks, and reference values. Verification was performed step by step. Risk analysis was performed using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and the Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the study, 23,633 laboratory reports were generated, containing 246,579 test results for 167 biochemical tests. Of these, 198,879 (80.66 %) met the criteria for autoverification. For 2,057 results (0.83 %), the experts disagreed with the autoverification criteria (false negatives). Discrepancies were mainly associated to median and delta check values. Only 45 false positives (0.02 %) were identified, resulting in an RPN of 0 for all cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The autoverified and non-autoverified results showed high agreement with the expert opinions, with minimal disagreement (0.02 % and 0.83 %, respectively). The risk analysis showed that autoverification did not pose a significant risk to patient safety. This study, the first of its kind, provides step-by-step recommendations for implementing autoverification in laboratories.</p>","PeriodicalId":10390,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2024-1164","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Autoverification increases the efficiency of laboratories. Laboratories accredited according to ISO 15189:2022 need to validate their processes, including autoverification, and assess the associated risks to patient safety. The aim of this study was to propose a systematic verification algorithm for autoverification and to assess its potential risks.

Methods: The study was conducted using retrospective data from the Laboratory Information System (LIS). Seven laboratory medicine specialists participated. Autoverification rules were defined for analytes in serum, stool, urine and whole blood determined on Alinity ci (Abbott), Atellica 1500 (Siemens) and ABL90 FLEX (Radiometer). Criteria included internal quality control results, instrument flags, hemolysis/icteria/lipemia indices, median patient values, critical values, measurement ranges, delta checks, and reference values. Verification was performed step by step. Risk analysis was performed using Failure Modes and Effects Analysis and the Risk Priority Number (RPN) was calculated.

Results: During the study, 23,633 laboratory reports were generated, containing 246,579 test results for 167 biochemical tests. Of these, 198,879 (80.66 %) met the criteria for autoverification. For 2,057 results (0.83 %), the experts disagreed with the autoverification criteria (false negatives). Discrepancies were mainly associated to median and delta check values. Only 45 false positives (0.02 %) were identified, resulting in an RPN of 0 for all cases.

Conclusions: The autoverified and non-autoverified results showed high agreement with the expert opinions, with minimal disagreement (0.02 % and 0.83 %, respectively). The risk analysis showed that autoverification did not pose a significant risk to patient safety. This study, the first of its kind, provides step-by-step recommendations for implementing autoverification in laboratories.

验证结果的自动审查、发布和报告,并评估对患者的伤害风险:临床实验室的程序算法建议。
目的:自动验证提高实验室效率。通过ISO 15189:2022认证的实验室需要验证其流程,包括自动验证,并评估患者安全的相关风险。本研究的目的是提出一种系统的自动验证算法,并评估其潜在风险。方法:采用实验室信息系统(LIS)的回顾性资料进行研究。7名检验医学专家参与。对Alinity ci (Abbott)、Atellica 1500 (Siemens)和ABL90 FLEX (Radiometer)检测的血清、粪便、尿液和全血中的分析物定义了自动验证规则。标准包括内部质量控制结果、仪器标志、溶血/黄疸/血脂指数、患者中位值、临界值、测量范围、delta检查和参考值。验证是一步一步进行的。采用失效模式和影响分析法进行风险分析,并计算风险优先级数(RPN)。结果:在研究期间,生成了23,633份实验室报告,其中包含167项生化测试的246,579项测试结果。其中,198,879(80.66 %)符合自动验证的标准。对于2057个结果(0.83 %),专家不同意自动验证标准(假阴性)。差异主要与中位数和增量检查值有关。仅鉴定出45例假阳性(0.02 %),导致所有病例的RPN为0。结论:自动验证和非自动验证结果与专家意见一致性高,差异最小(分别为0.02 %和0.83 %)。风险分析表明,自动验证不会对患者安全构成重大风险。本研究是同类研究中的第一个,为在实验室中实施自动验证提供了逐步的建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
11.30
自引率
16.20%
发文量
306
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) publishes articles on novel teaching and training methods applicable to laboratory medicine. CCLM welcomes contributions on the progress in fundamental and applied research and cutting-edge clinical laboratory medicine. It is one of the leading journals in the field, with an impact factor over 3. CCLM is issued monthly, and it is published in print and electronically. CCLM is the official journal of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and publishes regularly EFLM recommendations and news. CCLM is the official journal of the National Societies from Austria (ÖGLMKC); Belgium (RBSLM); Germany (DGKL); Hungary (MLDT); Ireland (ACBI); Italy (SIBioC); Portugal (SPML); and Slovenia (SZKK); and it is affiliated to AACB (Australia) and SFBC (France). Topics: - clinical biochemistry - clinical genomics and molecular biology - clinical haematology and coagulation - clinical immunology and autoimmunity - clinical microbiology - drug monitoring and analysis - evaluation of diagnostic biomarkers - disease-oriented topics (cardiovascular disease, cancer diagnostics, diabetes) - new reagents, instrumentation and technologies - new methodologies - reference materials and methods - reference values and decision limits - quality and safety in laboratory medicine - translational laboratory medicine - clinical metrology Follow @cclm_degruyter on Twitter!
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信