Establishing quality indicators for point of care glucose testing: recommendations from the Canadian Society for Clinical Chemists Point of Care Testing and Quality Indicators Special Interest Groups.
POCT
critical results
positive patient ID
quality assurance
quality indicators
risk assessment
Journal
Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine
ISSN: 1437-4331
Titre abrégé: Clin Chem Lab Med
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9806306
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
27 06 2023
27 06 2023
Historique:
received:
09
02
2023
accepted:
17
03
2023
medline:
30
5
2023
pubmed:
13
4
2023
entrez:
12
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Monitoring quality indicators (QIs) is an important part of laboratory quality assurance (QA). Here, the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists (CSCC) Point of Care Testing (POCT) and QI Special Interest Groups describe a process for establishing and monitoring QIs for POCT glucose testing. Key, error prone steps in the POCT glucose testing process were collaboratively mapped out, followed by risk assessment for each step. Steps with the highest risk and ability to detect a non-conformance were chosen for follow-up. These were positive patient identification (PPID) and repeat of critically high glucose measurements. Participating sites were asked to submit aggregate data for these indicators from their site(s) for a one-month period. The PPID QI was also included as part of a national QI monitoring program for which fifty-seven sites submitted data. The percentage of POCT glucose tests performed without valid PPID ranged from 0-87%. Sites without Admission-Discharge-Transfer (ADT) connectivity to POCT meters were among those with the highest percentage of POCT glucose tests performed without valid PPID. The percentage repeated critically high glucose measurements ranged from 0-50%, indicating low compliance with this recommendation. A high rate of discordance was also noted when critically high POCT glucose measurements were repeated, demonstrating the importance of repeat testing prior to insulin administration. Here, a process for establishing these QIs is described, with preliminary data for two QIs chosen from this process. The findings demonstrate the importance of QIs for identification and comparative performance monitoring of non-conformances to improve POCT quality.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37043622
pii: cclm-2023-0147
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2023-0147
doi:
Substances chimiques
Glucose
IY9XDZ35W2
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1280-1287Informations de copyright
© 2023 the author(s), published by De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.
Références
Mainz, J. Defining and classifying clinical indicators for quality improvement. Int J Qual Health Care 2003;15:523–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzg081 .
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzg081
Plebani, M, Astion, ML, Barth, JH, Chen, W, de Oliveira Galoro, CA, Escuer, MI, et al.. Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A primary consensus. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:951–8. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2014-0142 .
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2014-0142
Sciacovelli, L, Padoan, A, Aita, A, Basso, D, Plebani, M. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: state-of-the-art, quality specifications and future strategies. Clin Chem Lab Med 2023;61:688–95. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-1143 .
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2022-1143
ISO 15189:2022. Medical laboratories – requirements for quality and compliance.
Sciacovelli, L, Lippi, G, Sumarac, Z, West, J, del Pino Castro, IG, Furtado Vieira, K, et al.. IFCC Working Group on Laboratory Errors and Patient safety . Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: the status of the progress of IFCC Working Group “laboratory errors and patient safety” project. Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:348–57. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2016-0929 .
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2016-0929
Shaw, JL, McCudden, CR, Colantonio, DA, Booth, RA, Lin, DC, Blasutig, IM, et al.. Effective interventions to improve the quality of critically high point-of-care glucose results. Prac Lab Med 2020;22:e00184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2020.e00184 .
doi: 10.1016/j.plabm.2020.e00184
Plebani, M, Sciacovelli, L, Marinova, M, Marcuccitti, J, Chiozza, ML. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: a fundamental tool for quality and patient safety. Clin Biochem 2013;46:1170–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.11.028 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.11.028
Brun, M, Fuzery, AK, Henschke, B, Rozak, K, Venner, AA. Identifying sources of error and selecting quality indicators for point of care testing. Prac Lab Med 2021;25:200216.
Janssens, PMW. Practical, transparent prospective risk analysis for the clinical laboratory. Ann Clin Biochem 2014;51:695–704. https://doi.org/10.1177/0004563214521160 .
doi: 10.1177/0004563214521160
Societe quebecoise de biologie clinique. 2022. Program for quality indicators comparison. Available from: https://caqbc.sqbc.qc.ca/Homepage=Home [Accessed Aug 2022].
Van Hoof, V, Bench, S, Soto, AB, Luppa, PP, Malpass, A, Schilling, UM, et al.. Failure Mode and Effects Analysis (FMEA) at the preanalytical phase for POCT blood gas analysis: proposal for a shared proactive risk analysis model. Clin Chem Lab Med 2022;60:1186–201. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2022-0319 .
doi: 10.1515/cclm-2022-0319