The final part of the CRESS trilogy - how to evaluate the quality of stability studies.

High quality laboratory results are critical for patient management. However, poor sample quality can impact these results and patient safety. To ensure reliable and accurate results laboratories must be aware of each analyte's stability under various storage conditions and matrices to guarantee correct and dependable outcomes. This knowledge allows laboratories to define the allowable delay between sample collection and centrifugation/analysis for all analytes to guarantee appropriate results quality and interpretation. The EFLM WG-PRE therefore established a 4-step plan to tackle this issue, aiming to standardize and harmonize stability studies for improved comparison and meta-analysis. The plan included the development of checklists and how-to guides for performing and reporting stability studies as well as a central resource of stability data. This manuscript deals with the issue of evaluating publications and incorporating them into a central resource. To evaluate stability studies, the CRESS checklist was used to structure 20 sections used to judge the quality of studies. Each section has 4 levels of quality, with scores converted to numerical values and weighted based on expert opinion. Based on this, a final score ranging from A to D was determined. The procedure was then tested on six manuscripts and checked for agreement between expert judgements. The results demonstrated that the proposed evaluation process is a useful tool to distinguish between best in class manuscripts and those of lower quality. The EFLM WG-PRE strongly believes that the provided recommendations and checklists will help improving stability studies both in quality and standardisation.

Recommendations for blood sampling in emergency departments from the European Society for Emergency Medicine (EUSEM), European Society for Emergency Nursing (EuSEN), and European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase. Executive summary.

AIM: Blood Sampling Guidelines have been developed to target European emergency medicine-related professionals involved in the blood sampling process (e.g. physicians, nurses, phlebotomists working in the ED), as well as laboratory physicians and other related professionals. The guidelines population focus on adult patients. The development of these blood sampling guidelines for the ED setting is based on the collaboration of three European scientific societies that have a role to play in the preanalytical phase process: EuSEN, EFLM, and EUSEM. The elaboration of the questions was done using the PICO procedure, literature search and appraisal was based on the GRADE methodology. The final recommendations were reviewed by an international multidisciplinary external review group. RESULTS: The document includes the elaborated recommendations for the selected sixteen questions. Three in pre-sampling, eight regarding sampling, three post-sampling, and two focus on quality assurance. In general, the quality of the evidence is very low, and the strength of the recommendation in all the questions has been rated as weak. The working group in four questions elaborate the recommendations, based mainly on group experience, rating as good practice. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary working group was considered one of the major contributors to this guideline. The lack of quality information highlights the need for research in this area of the patient care process. The peculiarities of the emergency medical areas need specific considerations to minimise the possibility of errors in the preanalytical phase.

Analytical interference of intravascular contrast agents with clinical laboratory tests: a joint guideline by the ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee and the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee.

The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology has, together with the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee, reviewed the literature and updated its recommendations to increase awareness and provide insight into these interferences.

Nephrolithiasis Associated with Nephrocalcinosis Is Primarily Composed of Carbonate Apatite.

INTRODUCTION: This study was designed to determine the mineral composition of calculi in nephrocalcinosis with nephrolithiasis, diagnose the underlying disease, and monitor the course of renal function in patients with nephrocalcinosis-nephrolithiasis. METHODS: Renal calculi extruded in a series of 8 patients with nephrocalcinosis were analysed using Fourier transmission infrared spectrometry. In 4 patients, next-generation sequencing using a nephrocalcinosis-nephrolithiasis panel was performed to determine the nature of the underlying disease. In addition, longitudinal analysis of renal function was performed in all patients. RESULTS: Seven patients revealed carbonate apatite as the sole constituent of renal calculi. One patient showed a mixed composition of dicalcium phosphate dihydrate/carbonate apatite at first analysis yet in subsequent episodes also had calculi composed of pure carbonate apatite. Further molecular analysis displayed distal renal tubular acidosis in 2 of 4 patients who consented to sequencing. No known genetic defect could be found in the other two cases. In line with prior reports, decline of renal function was dependent on underlying disease. Distal renal tubular acidosis revealed a progressive course of renal failure, whereas other causes showed stable renal function in long term analysis. CONCLUSION: Nephrocalcinosis with nephrolithiasis is a rare condition with heterogeneous aetiology. Yet mineral composition of renal calculi predominantly consisted of pure carbonate apatite. This uniform finding is similar to subcutaneous calcifications of various origins and might propose a general principle of tissue calcification. Progressive decline of renal function was found in distal renal tubular acidosis, whereas other conditions remained stable over time.

Erroneous potassium results: preanalytical causes, detection, and corrective actions.

Potassium is one of the most requested laboratory tests. Its level is carefully monitored and maintained in a narrow physiological range. Even slightly altered potassium values may severely impact the patient's health, which is why an accurate and reliable result is of such importance. Even if high-quality analytics are available, there are still numerous ways in which potassium measurements may be biased, all of which occur in the preanalytical phase of the total laboratory testing process. As these results do not reflect the patient's in-vivo status, such results are referred to as pseudo-hyper/hypokalemia or indeed pseudo-normokalemia, depending on the true potassium result. Our goal in this review is to present an in-depth analysis of preanalytical errors that may result in inaccurate potassium results. After reviewing existing evidence on this topic, we classified preanalytical errors impacting potassium results into 4 categories: 1) patient factors like high platelet, leukocytes, or erythrocyte counts; 2) the sample type 3) the blood collection procedure, including inappropriate equipment, patient preparation, sample contamination and others and 4) the tube processing. The latter two include sample transport and storage conditions of whole blood, plasma, or serum as well as sample separation and subsequent preanalytical processes. In particular, we discuss the contribution of hemolysis, as one of the most frequent preanalytical errors, to pseudo-hyperkalemia. We provide a practical flow chart and a tabular overview of all the discussed preanalytical errors including possible underlying mechanisms, indicators for detection, suggestions for corrective actions, and references to the according evidence. We thereby hope that this manuscript will serve as a resource in the prevention and investigation of potentially biased potassium results.

Analytical interference of intravascular contrast agents with clinical laboratory tests: a joint guideline by the ESUR Contrast Media Safety Committee and the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee.

The Contrast Media Safety Committee of the European Society of Urogenital Radiology has, together with the Preanalytical Phase Working Group of the EFLM Science Committee, reviewed the literature and updated its recommendations to increase awareness and provide insight into these interferences. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Contrast Media may interfere with clinical laboratory tests. Awareness of potential interference may prevent unwanted misdiagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Contrast Media may interfere with clinical laboratory tests; therefore awareness of potential interference may prevent unwanted misdiagnosis. • Clinical Laboratory tests should be performed prior to radiological imaging with contrast media or alternatively, blood or urine collection should be delayed, depending on kidney function.

Disruption vs. evolution in laboratory medicine. Current challenges and possible strategies, making laboratories and the laboratory specialist profession fit for the future.

Since beginning of medical diagnostics, laboratory specialists have done an amazing job, continuously improving quality, spectrum and speed of laboratory tests, currently contributing to the majority of medical decision making. These improvements are mostly of an incremental evolutionary fashion, meaning improvements of current processes. Sometimes these evolutionary innovations are of a radical fashion, such as the invention of automated analyzers replacing manual testing or the implementation of mass spectrometry, leading to one big performance leap instead of several small ones. In few cases innovations may be of disruptive nature. In laboratory medicine this would be applicable to digitalization of medicine or the decoding of the human genetic material. Currently, laboratory medicine is again facing disruptive innovations or technologies, which need to be adapted to as soon as possible. One of the major disruptive technologies is the increasing availability and medical use of artificial intelligence. It is necessary to rethink the position of the laboratory specialist within healthcare settings and the added value he or she can provide to patient care. The future of the laboratory specialist profession is bright, as it the only medical profession comprising such vast experience in patient diagnostics. However, laboratory specialists need to develop strategies to provide this expertise, by adopting to the quickly evolving technologies and demands. This opinion paper summarizes some of the disruptive technologies as well as strategies to secure and/or improve the quality of diagnostic patient care and the laboratory specialist profession.

The preanalytical phase - from an instrument-centred to a patient-centred laboratory medicine.

In order to guarantee patient safety, medical laboratories around the world strive to provide highest quality in the shortest amount of time. A major leap in quality improvement was achieved by aiming to avoid preanalytical errors within the total testing process. Although these errors were first described in the 1970s, it took additional years/decades for large-scale efforts, aiming to improve preanalytical quality by standardisation and/or harmonisation. Initially these initiatives were mostly on the local or national level. Aiming to fill this void, in 2011 the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) working group "Preanalytical Phase" (WG-PRE) was founded. In the 11 years of its existence this group was able to provide several recommendations on various preanalytical topics. One major achievement of the WG-PRE was the development of an European consensus guideline on venous blood collection. In recent years the definition of the preanalytical phase has been extended, including laboratory test selection, thereby opening a huge field for improvement, by implementing strategies to overcome misuse of laboratory testing, ideally with the support of artificial intelligence models. In this narrative review, we discuss important aspects and milestones in the endeavour of preanalytical process improvement, which would not have been possible without the support of the Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM) journal, which was one of the first scientific journals recognising the importance of the preanalytical phase and its impact on laboratory testing quality and ultimately patient safety.

The preanalytical process in the emergency department, a European survey.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical decision-making in emergency medicine is under constant pressure from demand and performance requirements, with blood tests being a fundamental part of this. However, the preanalytical process has received little attention. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the quality of preanalytical phase processes in European emergency departments (EDs) from the perspectives of the three main providers: clinicians, nurses, and laboratory specialists. METHODS: This online survey, distributed among European EDs and laboratories, was supported by the European Society for Emergency Nursing (EUSEN), European Society for Emergency Medicine (EuSEM), and the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM). The size of the centres, the European region, the responder's profession and the country's economic condition were used as co-variables. RESULTS: We included 376 responses from all ED-related professions from 306 European centres. In 66.9% of all ED visits, at least one blood test was performed. Tests were requested mostly by nurses (44.6%) using electronic Order/Entry systems (65.4%). Only a minority (19%) reported not using laboratory quality indicators (QIs). Most responders defined the TAT starting point "when the laboratory receives the sample" (66.1%), defining the goal to be "less than 60 min" (69.9%), but only 42.4% of the centres estimated achieving this goal. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey illustrates the current situation on preanalytical blood sample processing in European EDs from the clinical and laboratory perspectives. The results emphasise the importance of the IT infrastructure and QI usage in this process and highlight some differences between European regions.

Where is laboratory medicine headed in the next decade? Partnership model for efficient integration and adoption of artificial intelligence into medical laboratories.

OBJECTIVES: The field of artificial intelligence (AI) has grown in the past 10 years. Despite the crucial role of laboratory diagnostics in clinical decision-making, we found that the majority of AI studies focus on surgery, radiology, and oncology, and there is little attention given to AI integration into laboratory medicine. METHODS: We dedicated a session at the 3rd annual European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) strategic conference in 2022 to the topic of AI in the laboratory of the future. The speakers collaborated on generating a concise summary of the content that is presented in this paper. RESULTS: The five key messages are (1) Laboratory specialists and technicians will continue to improve the analytical portfolio, diagnostic quality and laboratory turnaround times; (2) The modularized nature of laboratory processes is amenable to AI solutions; (3) Laboratory sub-specialization continues and from test selection to interpretation, tasks increase in complexity; (4) Expertise in AI implementation and partnerships with industry will emerge as a professional competency and require novel educational strategies for broad implementation; and (5) regulatory frameworks and guidances have to be adopted to new computational paradigms. CONCLUSIONS: In summary, the speakers opine that the ability to convert the value-proposition of AI in the laboratory will rely heavily on hands-on expertise and well designed quality improvement initiative from within laboratory for improved patient care.

Potentials and pitfalls of ChatGPT and natural-language artificial intelligence models for the understanding of laboratory medicine test results. An assessment by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group on Artificial Intelligence (WG-AI).

OBJECTIVES: ChatGPT, a tool based on natural language processing (NLP), is on everyone's mind, and several potential applications in healthcare have been already proposed. However, since the ability of this tool to interpret laboratory test results has not yet been tested, the EFLM Working group on Artificial Intelligence (WG-AI) has set itself the task of closing this gap with a systematic approach. METHODS: WG-AI members generated 10 simulated laboratory reports of common parameters, which were then passed to ChatGPT for interpretation, according to reference intervals (RI) and units, using an optimized prompt. The results were subsequently evaluated independently by all WG-AI members with respect to relevance, correctness, helpfulness and safety. RESULTS: ChatGPT recognized all laboratory tests, it could detect if they deviated from the RI and gave a test-by-test as well as an overall interpretation. The interpretations were rather superficial, not always correct, and, only in some cases, judged coherently. The magnitude of the deviation from the RI seldom plays a role in the interpretation of laboratory tests, and artificial intelligence (AI) did not make any meaningful suggestion regarding follow-up diagnostics or further procedures in general. CONCLUSIONS: ChatGPT in its current form, being not specifically trained on medical data or laboratory data in particular, may only be considered a tool capable of interpreting a laboratory report on a test-by-test basis at best, but not on the interpretation of an overall diagnostic picture. Future generations of similar AIs with medical ground truth training data might surely revolutionize current processes in healthcare, despite this implementation is not ready yet.

Recommendation for the design of stability studies on clinical specimens.

OBJECTIVES: Knowledge of the stability of analytes in clinical specimens is a prerequisite for proper transport and preservation of samples to avoid laboratory errors. The new version of ISO 15189:2022 and the European directive 2017/746 increase the requirements on this topic for manufacturers and laboratories. Within the project to generate a stability database of European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE), the need to standardise and improve the quality of published stability studies has been detected, being a manifest deficit the absence of international guidelines for the performance of stability studies on clinical specimens. METHODS: These recommendations have been developed and summarised by consensus of the WG-PRE and are intended primarily to improve the quality of sample stability claims included in information for users provided by assay supplier companies, according to the requirements of the new European regulations and standards for accreditation. RESULTS: This document provides general recommendations for the performance of stability studies, oriented to the estimation of instability equations in the usual working conditions, allowing flexible adaptation of the maximum permissible error specifications to obtain stability limits adapted to the intended use. CONCLUSIONS: We present this recommendation based on the opinions of the EFLM WG-PRE group for the standardisation and improvement of stability studies, with the intention to improve the quality of the studies and the transferability of their results to laboratories.

Preanalytical quality improvement - an interdisciplinary journey, on behalf of the European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE).

Since the beginning of laboratory medicine, the main focus was to provide high quality analytics. Over time the importance of the extra-analytical phases and their contribution to the overall quality became evident. However, as the initial preanalytical processes take place outside of the laboratory and mostly without its supervision, all professions participating in these process steps, from test selection to sample collection and transport, need to engage accordingly. Focusing solely on intra-laboratory processes will not be sufficient to achieve the best possible preanalytical quality. The Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has provided several recommendations, opinion papers and scientific evidence over the past years, aiming to standardize the preanalytical phase across Europe. One of its strategies to reach this goal are educational efforts. As such, the WG-PRE has organized five conferences in the past decade with the sole focus on preanalytical quality. This year's conference mainly aims to depict the views of different professions on preanalytical processes in order to acquire common ground as basis for further improvements. This article summarizes the content of this 6th preanalytical conference.

Efficiency, efficacy and subjective user satisfaction of alternative laboratory report formats. An investigation on behalf of the Working Group for Postanalytical Phase (WG-POST), of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM).

OBJECTIVES: Although laboratory result presentation may lead to information overload and subsequent missed or delayed diagnosis, little has been done in the past to improve this post-analytical issue. We aimed to investigate the efficiency, efficacy and user satisfaction of alternative report formats. METHODS: We redesigned cumulative (sparkline format) and single reports (improved tabular and z-log format) and tested these on 46 physicians, nurses and medical students in comparison to the classical tabular formats, by asking standardized questions on general items on the reports as well as on suspected diagnosis and follow-up treatment or diagnostics. RESULTS: Efficacy remained at a very high level both in the new formats as well as in the classical formats. We found no significant difference in any of the groups. Efficiency improved in all groups when using the sparkline cumulative format and marginally when showing the improved tabular format. When asking medical questions, efficiency and efficacy remained similar between report formats and groups. All alternative reports were subjectively more attractive to the majority of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Showing cumulative reports as a graphical display led to faster detection of general information on the report with the same level of correctness. Considering the familiarity bias of the classical single report formats, the borderline-significant improvement of the alternative tabular format and the non-inferiority of the z-log format, suggests that single reports might benefit from some improvements derived from basic information design.

Presentation and formatting of laboratory results: a narrative review on behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group "postanalytical phase" (WG-POST).

In laboratory medicine, much effort has been put into analytical quality in the past decades, making this medical profession one of the most standardized with the lowest rates of error. However, even the best analytical quality cannot compensate for errors or low quality in the pre or postanalytical phase of the total testing process. Guidelines for data reporting focus solely on defined data elements, which have to be provided alongside the analytical test results. No guidelines on how to format laboratory reports exist. The habit of reporting as much diagnostic data as possible, including supplemental information, may lead to an information overload. Considering the multiple tasks physicians have to do simultaneously, unfiltered data presentation may contribute to patient risk, as important information may be overlooked, or juxtaposition errors may occur. As laboratories should aim to answer clinical questions, rather than providing sole analytical results, optimizing formatting options may help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of medical decision-making. In this narrative review, we focus on the underappreciated topic of laboratory result reporting. We present published literature, focusing on the impact of laboratory result report formatting on medical decisions as well as approaches, potential benefits, and limitations for alternative report formats. We discuss influencing variables such as, for example, the type of patient (e.g. acute versus chronic), the medical specialty of the recipient of the report, the display of reference intervals, the medium or platform on which the laboratory report is presented (printed paper, within electronic health record systems, on handheld devices, etc.), the context in which the report is viewed in, and difficulties in formatting single versus cumulative reports. Evidence on this topic, especially experimental studies, is scarce. When considering the medical impact, it is of utmost importance that laboratories focus not only on the analytical aspects but on the total testing process. The achievement of high analytical quality may be of minor value if essential results get lost in overload or scattering of information by using a non-formatted tabular design. More experimental studies to define guidelines and to standardize effective and efficient reporting are most definitely needed.

Managing hemolyzed samples in clinical laboratories.

Hemolysis is conventionally defined as membrane disruption of red blood cells and other blood cells that is accompanied by subsequent release of intracellular components into the serum or plasma. It accounts for over 60% of blood sample rejections in the laboratory and is the most common preanalytical error in laboratory medicine. Hemolysis can occur both in vivo and in vitro. Intravascular hemolysis (in vivo) is always associated with an underlying pathological condition or disease, and thus careful steps should always be taken by the laboratory to exclude in vivo hemolysis with confidence. In vitro hemolysis, on the other hand, is highly preventable. It may occur at all stages of the preanalytical phase (i.e. sample collection, transport, handling and storage), and may lead to clinically relevant, yet spurious, changes in patient results by interfering with laboratory measurements. Hemolysis interference is exerted through several mechanisms: (1) spectrophotometric interference, (2) release of intracellular components, (3) sample dilution and (4) chemical interference. The degree of interference observed depends on the level of hemolysis and also on the assay methodology. Recent evidence shows that preanalytical practices related to detection and management of hemolyzed samples are highly heterogeneous and need to be standardized. The Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has published many recommendations for facilitating standardization and improvement of this important preanalytical issue. Some key EFLM WG-PRE publications related to hemolysis involve: (i) a call for more transparency and some practical recommendations for improving the harmonization of the automatic assessment of serum indices and their clinical usefulness, specifically the hemolysis index (H-index), (ii) recommendations on how to manage local quality assurance of serum or plasma hemolysis/icterus/lipemia-indices (HIL-indices) and (iii) recommendations on how to detect and manage hemolyzed samples in clinical chemistry testing. In this review we provide a comprehensive overview of hemolysis, including its causes and effects on clinical laboratory assays. Furthermore, we list and discuss the most recent recommendations aimed at managing hemolyzed samples in everyday practice. Given the high prevalence of hemolyzed blood samples, the associated costs, the great heterogeneity in how hemolysis is handled across healthcare settings, countries and continents, and increasing patient cross-border mobility, standardization and quality improvement processes aimed at combatting this important preanalytical problem are clearly warranted.

Exact time of venous blood sample collection - an unresolved issue, on behalf of the European Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE).

Objectives An accurate knowledge of blood collection times is crucial for verifying the stability of laboratory analytes. We therefore aimed to (i) assess if and how this information is collected throughout Europe and (ii) provide a list of potentially available solutions. Methods A survey was issued by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group on Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) in 2017, aiming to collect data on preanalytical process management, including sampling time documentation, in European laboratories. A preceding pilot survey was disseminated in Austria in 2016. Additionally, preanalytical experts were surveyed on their local setting on this topic. Finally, the current scientific literature was reviewed on established possibilities of sampling time collection. Results A total number of 85 responses was collected from the pilot survey, whilst 1347 responses from 37 European countries were obtained from the final survey. A minority (i.e. ~13%) of responders to the latter declared they are unaware of the exact sampling time. The corresponding rate in Austria was ~70% in the pilot and ~30% in the final survey, respectively. Answers from 17 preanalytical experts from 16 countries revealed that sampling time collection seems to be better documented for out- than for in-patients. Eight different solutions for sample time documentation are presented. Conclusions The sample collection time seems to be documented very heterogeneously across Europe, or not at all. Here we provide some solutions to this issue and believe that laboratories should urgently aim to implement one of these.

PREDICT: a checklist for preventing preanalytical diagnostic errors in clinical trials.

Although the importance of guaranteeing a high level of preanalytical quality in routine diagnostic testing has already been largely acknowledged over the past decades, minor emphasis is currently being placed on the fact that accurate performance and standardization of many preanalytical activities are also necessary prerogatives of clinical trials. Reliable evidence exists that clear indications on how to manage the different preanalytical steps are currently lacking in many clinical trials protocols, nor have detailed authoritative documents been published or endorsed on this matter to the best of our knowledge. To fill this gap, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) will provide here a specific checklist for preventing preanalytical diagnostic errors in clinical trials (PREDICT), especially focused on covering the most important preanalytical aspects of blood sample management in clinical studies, and thus encompassing test selection, patient preparation, sample collection, management and storage, sample transportation, as well as specimen retrieval before testing. The WG-PRE members sincerely hope that these recommendations will provide a useful contribution for increasing the success rate in clinical trials.

The clinically effective use of cardiac markers by restructuring laboratory profiles at Cardiology wards.

Background: Laboratory overutilization is associated with diagnostic error and potential patient risk. We applied a demand management strategy in collaboration with the local Department of Cardiology to reduce the cardiac markers high-sensitive troponin T (hsTropT) and N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NTproBNP) in laboratory ordering profiles (LOPs). The present study aimed to retrospectively evaluate the implemented strategies. Methods: Strategies included educational measures and evidence-guided, active test de-selection from all cardiology ward LOPs, and/or permanent removal from LOPs. Tests remained available at all times. We evaluated overutilization by reductions in monthly orders, and assessed differences in 30-day all-cause readmission rate and length of patients' hospital stay. Results: Overall, we observed a mean reduction of 66.1% ± 7.6% (n = 277 ± 31) in hsTropT tests. Educational measures effectively reduced NTproBNP orders by 52.8% ± 17.7% (n = 60 ± 20). Permanent removal of tests from LOPs additionally decreased orders to a final extent of 75.8% ± 8.0% (n = 322 ± 31) in NTproBNP tests. The 30-day readmission rate and overall length of hospital stay did not increase. Conclusions: Our results indicate that cardiac markers in routine care are subject to extensive overutilization when used within LOPs. Educational measures are an effective strategy to overcome the overutilization of cardiac markers but may be more effective when combined with the removal of cardiac markers from LOPs.

The CRESS checklist for reporting stability studies: on behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE).

To ensure that clinical laboratories produce results that are both accurate and of clinical utility it is essential that only samples of adequate quality are analysed. Although various studies and databases assessing the stability of analytes in different settings do exist, guidance on how to perform and report stability studies is lacking. This results in studies that often do not report essential information, thus compromising transferability of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the Checklist for Reporting Stability Studies (CRESS) against which future studies should be reported to ensure standardisation of reporting and easy assessment of transferability of studies to other healthcare settings. The EFLM WG-PRE (European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase) produced the CRESS checklist following a detailed literature review and extensive discussions resulting in consensus agreement. The checklist consists of 20 items covering all the aspects that should be considered when producing a report on a stability study including details of what should be included for each item and a rationale as to why. Adherence to the CRESS checklist will ensure that studies are reported in a transparent and replicable way. This will allow other laboratories to assess whether published data meet the stability criteria required in their own particular healthcare scenario. The EFLM WG-PRE encourage researchers and authors to use the CRESS checklist as a guide to planning stability studies and to produce standardised reporting of future stability studies.