» Articles » PMID: 32012203

Pre-analytical Error for Three Point of Care Venous Blood Testing Platforms in Acute Ambulatory Settings: A Mixed Methods Service Evaluation

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2020 Feb 4
PMID 32012203
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Introduction: Point of care blood testing to aid diagnosis is becoming increasingly common in acute ambulatory settings and enables timely investigation of a range of diagnostic markers. However, this testing allows scope for errors in the pre-analytical phase, which depends on the operator handling and transferring specimens correctly. The extent and nature of these pre-analytical errors in clinical settings has not been widely reported.

Methods: We carried out a convergent parallel mixed-methods service evaluation to investigate pre-analytical errors leading to a machine error reports in a large acute hospital trust in the UK. The quantitative component comprised a retrospective analysis of all recorded error codes from Abbott Point of Care i-STAT 1, i-STAT Alinity and Abbott Rapid Diagnostics Afinion devices to summarise the error frequencies and reasons for error, focusing on those attributable to the operator. The qualitative component included a prospective ethnographic study and a secondary analysis of an existing ethnographic dataset, based in hospital-based ambulatory care and community ambulatory care respectively.

Results: The i-STAT had the highest usage (113,266 tests, January 2016-December 2018). As a percentage of all tests attempted, its device-recorded overall error rate was 6.8% (95% confidence interval 6.6% to 6.9%), and in the period when reliable data could be obtained, the operator-attributable error rate was 2.3% (2.2% to 2.4%). Staff identified that the most difficult step was the filling of cartridges, but that this could be improved through practice, with a perception that cartridge wastage through errors was rare.

Conclusions: In the observed settings, the rate of errors attributable to operators of the primary point of care device was less than 1 in 40. In some cases, errors may lead to a small increase in resource use or time required so adequate staff training is necessary to prevent adverse impact on patient care.

Citing Articles

A Multiplex "Disposable Photonics" Biosensor Platform and Its Application to Antibody Profiling in Upper Respiratory Disease.

Bryan M, Butt J, Ding Z, Tokranova N, Cady N, Piorek B ACS Sens. 2024; 9(4):1799-1808.

PMID: 38549498 PMC: 11059096. DOI: 10.1021/acssensors.3c02225.


Design, Development, and Evaluation of the Blood Collection Management Workstation.

Huang H, Yin H, Xu W, Wang Q, Xiao M, Zhao Q Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2022; 15:2015-2022.

PMID: 36341474 PMC: 9635477. DOI: 10.2147/RMHP.S384866.

References
1.
John A, Price C . Existing and Emerging Technologies for Point-of-Care Testing. Clin Biochem Rev. 2014; 35(3):155-67. PMC: 4204237. View

2.
Plebani M . The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine. Ann Clin Biochem. 2009; 47(Pt 2):101-10. DOI: 10.1258/acb.2009.009222. View

3.
Kost G . Preventing medical errors in point-of-care testing: security, validation, safeguards, and connectivity. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2001; 125(10):1307-15. DOI: 10.5858/2001-125-1307-PMEIPO. View

4.
Schimke I . Quality and timeliness in medical laboratory testing. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2008; 393(5):1499-504. DOI: 10.1007/s00216-008-2349-5. View

5.
Vashist S, Luppa P, Yeo L, Ozcan A, Luong J . Emerging Technologies for Next-Generation Point-of-Care Testing. Trends Biotechnol. 2015; 33(11):692-705. DOI: 10.1016/j.tibtech.2015.09.001. View