dc.contributor.author
Cadamuro, Janne
dc.contributor.author
Lippi, Giuseppe
dc.contributor.author
von Meyer, Alexander
dc.contributor.author
Ibarz Escuer, Mercedes
dc.contributor.author
van Dongen–Lases, Edmee
dc.contributor.author
Cornes, Michael
dc.contributor.author
Nybo, Mads
dc.contributor.author
Vermeersch, Pieter
dc.contributor.author
Grankvist, Kjell
dc.contributor.author
Guimaraes, Joao Tiago
dc.contributor.author
Kristensen, Gunn B.
dc.contributor.author
de la Salle, Barbara
dc.contributor.author
Simundic, Ana-Maria
dc.date.accessioned
2024-12-05T21:35:58Z
dc.date.available
2024-12-05T21:35:58Z
dc.date.issued
2020-05-29T07:25:56Z
dc.date.issued
2020-05-29T07:25:56Z
dc.identifier
https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.020704
dc.identifier
1846-7482 (Online)
dc.identifier
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/68863
dc.identifier.uri
http://hdl.handle.net/10459.1/68863
dc.description.abstract
Introduction: Compared to other activities of the testing process, the preanalytical phase is plagued by a lower degree of standardization, which makes it more vulnerable to errors. With the aim of providing guidelines and recommendations, the EFLM WG-PRE issued a survey across European medical laboratories, to gather information on local preanalytical practices. This is part one of two coherent articles, which covers all practices on monitoring preanalytical quality except haemolysis, icterus and lipemia (HIL).
Materials and methods: An online survey, containing 39 questions dealing with a broad spectrum of preanalytical issues, was disseminated to EFLM member countries. The survey included questions on willingness of laboratories to engage in preanalytical issues.
Results: Overall, 1405 valid responses were received from 37 countries. 1265 (94%) responders declared to monitor preanalytical errors. Assessment, documentation and further use of this information varied widely among respondents and partially among countries. Many responders were interested in a preanalytical online platform, holding information on various aspects of the preanalytical phase (N = 1177; 87%), in a guideline for measurement and evaluation of preanalytical variables (N = 1235; 92%), and in preanalytical e-learning programs or webinars (N = 1125; 84%). Fewer responders were interested in, or already participating in, preanalytical EQA programs (N = 951; 71%).
Conclusion: Although substantial heterogeneity was found across European laboratories on preanalytical phase monitoring, the interest in preanalytical issues was high. A large majority of participants indicated an interest in new guidelines regarding preanalytical variables and learning activities. This important data will be used by the WG-PRE for providing recommendations on the most critical issues.
dc.publisher
Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine
dc.relation
Reproducció del document publicat a https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2019.020704
dc.relation
Biochemia Medica, 2019, vol. 29, núm. 2
dc.rights
cc-by, (c) Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry, 2018
dc.rights
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subject
Standardization
dc.title
European survey on preanalytical sample handling – Part 1: How do European laboratories monitor the preanalytical phase? On behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE)
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion