Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
    Users Online: 192
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 3  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 96-102

Self assessment of pre, intra and post analytical errors of urine analysis in Clinical Chemistry Laboratory of Alexandria Main University Hospital


Department of Clinical and Chemical Pathology, Alexandria University, Egypt

Correspondence Address:
Nermine Hossam
Clinical and Chemical Pathology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Alexandria University
Egypt
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2278-0521.134863

Rights and Permissions

Background: Analysis performed in the laboratory is subjected to variance; hence, every clinical laboratory must have adequate procedures to assure quality of the medical results reported. The definition of a total testing process incorporates the three classical phases of performance in laboratory testing: (1) pre analytical, (2) analytical, and (3) post analytical. Each phase when carried out properly plays an important role in preventing laboratory errors. Aim of the Work: The present study aimed at evaluating the performance of the Clinical Chemistry Unit of Alexandria Main University Hospital regarding urinalysis, through identification of the problems related to the total testing process. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 514 consecutive urine specimens that were received at the clinical chemistry laboratory of Alexandria Main University Hospital, during 3 months period from March to June, 2013. Inspection sheets were based upon the integration of the CLSI approved guidelines for urinalysis collection, transportation and preservation, inspection checklist of the CAP, and the review of the literature for similar studies. Results: Regarding the 514 studied request forms for urine analysis, they were found missing some data essential for interpretation of patient test results as recording time of specimen collection and time the specimen received by the lab (11.85%), followed by 462 missing requests and preliminary diagnosis or relevant clinical information (380 requests), which accounted for11.02 and 9.06% errors respectively. The request form was missing other important data as patients' identification, in 29 requests (0.69%), sex in 239 requests (5.7%), age in 208 requests (4.96%), date of specimen collection in 178 (4.24%), tests requested in 30 (0.72%), and authorized physicians' signature in 185 (4.41%). As regards request forms being authorized by a physicians' name or signature, our study showed that almost one third (185) of the request forms of the studied samples, lacked any indication for ordering physician, which accounts for 4.41% of the TTP errors. Also a comparative study was done between the pre analytical errors in the authorized request form and the unauthorized forms, which revealed that there was a high statistical significance difference (P < 0.0001) between the two forms, with errors being much lower in the authorized request forms. In this study the analytical phase showed the least number of errors, 23 errors done in 1970 activities for 514 specimens studied and 0.55% TTP errors. The high frequency in the analytical phase was for error of analysis 0.31% (13 specimens), followed by 6 specimens lost (0.14%), and 4 specimens mixed up (0.10%) out of 514 specimens study sample. Post analytical phase ranks the second in the error frequency in the present study, 487 errors in 1461 activities done for 514 specimens, which account for 11.61% of the TTP errors. As regards studying the post analytical phase, there was no results loss, but also there was no result verification procedure nor age and sex reference ranges in the results report.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed7166    
    Printed108    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded501    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal