Automated preanalytical units in the hemostasis laboratory: an observational descriptive prospective study developed in a university hospital between April 15 to July 15, 2017

• Main Authors: Sua, Luz Fernanda, Amézquita, María Alejandra, Hernández, Daniel Esteban, Alcalá Flores, Mercedes, Leib, Carl Sebastián, Aguirre Rojas, Marisol, Fernández Trujillo, Liliana
• Format: Article
• Language: Spanish
• Published: Universidad de Antioquia 2019-07-01
• Series: Iatreia
• Subjects: Hemostasis; Pre-Analytical Phase; Quality Control
• Online Access: http://aprendeenlinea.udea.edu.co/revistas/index.php/iatreia/article/view/334354/20793953
• ISSN: 0121-0793; 2011-7965

Introduction: Errors in the process of analyzing a clinical laboratory sample have a negative impact on medical practice, patient safety and health care cost. The use of automated units demonstrated the reduction of errors in the clinical laboratories of immunochemistry and hematology. The purpose of the study is to compare the first automated unit with a manual method and to determine the interferences informed in the samples provided by five services studied in the hospital for three months. Methods: A prospective descriptive study was developed. The automated unit and manual method analyzed all analytical requested samples received by the clinical laboratory. Interferences such as bilirubin, hemoglobin, lipemic, tube filling volume, and fluidclot obstruction were studied with both methods. The statistical analysis was performed and the kappa coefficient was calculated to determine the strength of agreement between both methods. Results: Of the 8.970 samples analyzed, 29 % came from the emergency service. The samples contributed by the intensive united care reported more interferences with both methods. The automated unit reported more interference than the manual method, with a kappa coefficient of 0,52. Bilirubin was the most commonly detected interference by both methods. The manual method did not show the interferences volume of tube filling or fluidic obstruction-clot, which have been detected by the automated unit. Conclusions: Automated unit detected more interference in comparison with the manual method. The interferences are preanalytical errors in the hemostasis laboratory and are less frequently detected by visual examination, especially interferences volume oftube filling or fluidic obstruction-clot.