The development of a system for the reporting, classification and grading of quality failures in the clinical biochemistry laboratory

Ann Clin Biochem 2008;45:129-134
doi:10.1258/acb.2007.007097
© 2008 Association for Clinical Biochemistry

 

This Article
Right arrow
Figures Only
Right arrow
Full Text
Right arrow

Full Text (PDF)

Right arrow
Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow
Email this article to a friend
Right arrow

Similar articles in this journal

Right arrow
Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow
Download to citation manager
Right arrow
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow
Articles by O’Kane, M. J
Right arrow
Articles by McGowan, N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow
PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking

What’s this?

Original Article


Maurice J O’Kane ,
P L Mark Lynch and
Noel McGowan


Clinical Chemistry Laboratory, Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry BT47 6SB, Northern Ireland


Corresponding author: Dr Maurice J O’Kane. Email: Maurice.OKane{at}westerntrust.hscni.net


Background: There is no agreed system for the reporting, classificationand grading of the severity of quality failures in the clinicalbiochemistry laboratory.

Methods: A ‘Quality Query’ reporting system was set up tolog all quality failures identified by staff and service users.Quality failures were classified into three major groups ofthe preanalytical, analytical and postanalytical phases withappropriate subcategories in each group. The severity of eachquality failure was graded using a five-point scoring systemincorporating both actual (‘A’) and potential (‘P’)score elements. The ‘A’ score measured the actualadverse impact of the quality failure on patient care, whilethe ‘P’ score measured the ‘worst case’potential outcome that might have resulted. The system was assessedover a 19-month period.

Results: Three hundred and ninety-seven Quality Query reports were completed(0.085% of all requests). Breakdown by cause: pre-analyticalphase – 88.9%, analytical phase – 9.6%, post-analyticalphase – 1.5%. The quality failure severity ‘A’scores were skewed towards a low adverse impact on patient care:72.7% allocated an ‘A’ score of 1 (least severegrade). The ‘P’ scores were skewed towards a highpotential impact on patient care: 65.9% allocated a ‘P’score of 5 (most severe grade).

Conclusions: The Quality Query reporting system proved easy to integrateinto routine laboratory practice. Although the great majorityof quality failures had minimal adverse impact on patient care,the potential for adverse outcomes was much higher. This systemgenerates important information on laboratory performance andhelps inform risk management priorities.


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What’s this?