Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus.

Quality indicators (QIs) are fundamental tools for enabling users to quantify the quality of all operational processes by comparing it against a defined criterion. QIs data should be collected over time to identify, correct, and continuously monitor defects and improve performance and patient safety by identifying and implementing effective interventions. According to the international standard for medical laboratories accreditation, the laboratory shall establish and periodically review QIs to monitor and evaluate performance throughout critical aspects of pre-, intra-, and post-analytical processes. However, while some interesting programs on indicators in the total testing process have been developed in some countries, there is no consensus for the production of joint recommendations focusing on the adoption of universal QIs and common terminology in the total testing process. A preliminary agreement has been achieved in a Consensus Conference organized in Padua in 2013, after revising the model of quality indicators (MQI) developed by the Working Group on "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The consensually accepted list of QIs, which takes into consideration both their importance and applicability, should be tested by all potentially interested clinical laboratories to identify further steps in the harmonization project.

Variation in Laboratory Reporting of Haemolysis - a Need for Harmonisation.

AIM: The purpose of this survey was to determine the cut-offs being used by Australian laboratories using their instrument's Haemolysis Index (HI), whether these cut-offs vary, and at what level of haemolysis (or haemolysis index) did laboratories stop reporting one or more analytes. This was done in response to the large numbers of haemolysed samples reported in the RCPAQAP Key Incident Monitoring and Management System External Quality Assurance program (KIMMS EQA) and lack of information in the literature at the time regarding what to do once a haemolysed sample was identified. As it was known from discussions with laboratory personnel that different instruments reported their HI differently, we asked for the results to be provided in g/L free haemoglobin. METHOD: An electronic survey was conducted with participants enrolled in the RCPA Quality Assurance Programs with a total of 68 laboratories responding to this survey. Some questions attracted a lower level of response. RESULTS: The responses showed a poor understanding of the relationship between HI units and haemoglobin concentration. There was wide variation in the way HI results were reported and thus comparing cut-off values for reporting specific analytes based on the HI was impossible to determine. CONCLUSION: There is a need to harmonise the way laboratories report analytes in the presence of haemolysis. This would involve adopting a uniform definition of HI and a protocol for laboratories to confirm for themselves the level of HI at which each analyte is no longer reported, as this is method dependent and so will vary from laboratory to laboratory.