Proper Patient Preparation, Specimen Collection, and Sample Handling are Critical to Quality Care

Garbage In, Garbage Out (GIGO), as the saying goes. This adage has been applied in a universal manner in addressing human errors. It certainly applies to establishing laboratory procedures that ensure care in managing the pre-analytical phase of laboratory testing. Sixty years ago, many common laboratory tests were performed manually, and thus were prone to inaccuracy and analytical mistakes. Today’s advanced technology places laboratory science in a highly automated and quality-focused environment that ensures accurate testing processes.

Total Testing Process (TTP)

Medical errors are the third leading cause of death in the U.S. The laboratory’s contribution to this major healthcare concern is only 0.33 percent.1 While this number appears small, laboratory errors do occur, not always resulting is death, but nevertheless having an important impact on patient care. As clinical laboratory scientists, we must make every effort to produce accurate test results.

Read more: Proper Patient Preparation, Specimen Collection, and Sample Handling are Critical to Quality Care

Source: MedicalLaboratoryObserver

Validating the Performance of Body Fluid Specimens

In health care, the analysis of body fluids plays an important role in the diagnosis and management of a wide variety of conditions. Traditionally, clinical laboratorians have provided analysis of body fluid specimens without question while also recognizing the sometimes difficult work that goes into their collection. As standards for method validation and laboratory developed tests (LDTs) evolve, the analysis of body fluids is receiving increased attention from both laboratories and regulatory bodies.

The clinical laboratory’s overarching goal is to ensure accurate test results from all specimens. Therefore, it is the responsibility of every laboratory to investigate the analytical performance of the tests performed on the various fluid types accepted and to provide a context for result interpretation.

Read more: Validating the Performance of Body Fluid Specimens

Source: medlabmag

Insights on the Growing Fingerprint Challenge

Although some fingerprint analysis is new, the concept—using fingerprints for identification—started centuries ago.

The Future of Identifying People Will Require More Than One Method

Standing in the immigration line at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in Delhi, India, I watch person after person be fingerprinted. First, you put your left four fingers on a digital pad, then your right four, and finally both thumbs at once. If all goes smoothly, the Indian government collects all ten fingerprints for everyone entering the country. It’s not as easy as it sounds, even from the start. More than one person is asked to try again and again. So obtaining a print can be as difficult as analyzing one.

Although some fingerprint analysis is new, the concept— using fingerprints for identification—started centuries ago. Thousands of years ago in Babylon, a fingerprint served as a signature of sorts on business papers. Finally, in 1880, British surgeon Henry Faulds described using fingerprints to identify people; he gets credit for the first use of this technology of lifting a print from an alcohol bottle.

Read more: Insights on the Growing Fingerprint Challenge

Source: labmanager

The Brain-to-Brain Loop in Molecular Oncology Laboratory Testing

Various Methods Allow Clinical Laboratories to Maximize Their Efficiency and Usefulness

The delineation of a brain-to-brain loop in clinical laboratory testing first published in 1981 has never been more pertinent. Its subsequent development and current application in clinical molecular oncology in 2016 can make all the difference.

This discussion focuses on the factors that drive the ordering of a lab test and the many components thereof, itemizes pre- and post-analytic causes of diagnostic error, and recommends how a laboratory can help ensure the usefulness of the entire process.

Just as a chain is no stronger than its weakest link, a loop that isn’t closed is (obviously) still open.

Technical and laboratory workers tend naturally to define their work by their technical products and procedures, as well they should. In clinical laboratory testing, that tends to be the step called “analysis.”

The success or failure of an “analysis” may well depend upon the pre- and post-analytic phases at least as much as the analysis itself.

Read more: The Brain-to-Brain Loop in Molecular Oncology Laboratory Testing

Source: DepositPhotos