Medical Laboratory Science
Phlebotomy is not a risk-free event for the patient or the healthcare worker. While rare, injury from needlestick and/or pathogen exposure can occur. Cumulative blood loss due to multiple phlebotomy episodes can result in iatrogenic anemia, particularly in the elderly, children, or those with medical conditions. This anemia can lead to worsened patient outcomes. Employing mechanisms that limit the amount of blood taken has been shown to lessen the severity of iatrogenic anemia. This can range from using smaller-volume collection tubes, consulting about the possibility of add-on testing to previously drawn samples, or adopting a maximum blood volume policy. Addressing duplicate requisitions can limit a patient from being phlebotomized twice.
Auta A, Adewuyi EO, Tor-Anyiin A, Edor JP, Kureh GT, Khanal V, Oga E, Adeloye D. Global prevalence of percutaneous injuries among healthcare workers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 2018;47(6):1972-80. PMID: 30272173.
Chandrashekar S. Hospital-Acquired anemia: A hazard of hospitalization. Glob J Transfus Med 2018;3:83-7
Dale JC, Ruby SG. Specimen collection volumes for laboratory tests: A College of American Pathologists Study of 140 Laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2003;127:62-68. PMID: 12562229.
Loh, TP, Saw S, Sethi SK. Clinical value of add-on chemistry testing in a large tertiary-care teaching hospital. Lab Med 2012;43(2):82-85.
Society for the Advancement of Blood Management. Anemia prevention and management program implementation guide. The Center for Hospital Innovation & Improvement 2015.
Whitehead N, Williams LO, Meleth S, Kennedy SM, Ubaka-Blackmoore N, Geaghan SM, et al. Interventions to prevent iatrogenic anemia: a Laboratory Medicine Best Practises systematic review. Crit Care 2019;23:278. PMID: 31399052.
The quality of specimens received in the laboratory is paramount to obtaining accurate results. Proceeding with testing in the presence of poor sample quality may give misleading results. This contributes to delays and unnecessary repeat examinations. Any level of error should be avoided to decrease negative impact on clinical decisions and patient care. Laboratory professionals should be proactive in ensuring that all types of specimens are collected in a high quality manner with correct identification, regardless of which health professional group is performing the act.
Chavan PD, Bhat VG, Polandia PP, Tiwari MR, Naresh C. Reduction in sample rejections at the pre-analytical phase – Impact of training in a tertiary care oncology center. J Lab Physicians 2019;11(3):229-33. PMID: 31579248.
Ho J, Marks GB, Fox GJ. The impact of sputum quality on tuberculosis diagnosis: a systematic review. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2015;19(5):537-44. PMID: 25868021.
Howanitz PJ, Lehman CM, Jones BA, Meier FA, Horowitz GL. Clinical laboratory quality practices when hemolysis occurs. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2015;139:901-6. PMID: 26125430.
Lippi G, von Meyer A, Cadamuro J, Simundic AM. Blood sample quality. Diagnosis 2019;6(1):25-31. PMID: 29794250.
O’Neill E, Richardson-Weber L, McCormack G, Uhl L, Haspel RL. Strict adherence to a blood bank specimen labeling policy by all clinical laboratories significantly reduces the incidence of “wrong blood in tube”. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;132:164-8. PMID: 19605809.
Frequently called ‘just-in-case’, ‘rainbow draws’ or simply ‘extra tubes’, blood collected before tests are ordered is frequently unused and ultimately discarded. This represents a waste of laboratory resources and a challenge for specimen management. Excessive phlebotomy is a recognized contributor to iatrogenic anemia, which is linked to worsened patient outcomes.
Gray A. Drawing extra blood tubes in the ED. Med Lab Observer [Internet]. 2012.
Humble RM, Hounkponou HG, Krasowski MD. The “Rainbow” of extra blood tubes – Useful or wasteful practise? JAMA Int Med 2017:177(1):128-9. PMID: 27820611.
Loh TP, Saw S, Sethi SK. Extra blood tubes – an affordable excess? Clin Chim Acta 2010:411:1544-5. PMID: 20542023.
Snozek CLH, Hernandez JS, Traub SJ. “Rainbow Draws” in the emergency department: clinical utility and staff perceptions. J Appl Lab Med 2019:4(2);229-234. PMID: 31639668.
Many analytes have known stability profiles or minimum retesting intervals. In most cases, values will not change during this time. These intervals may be longer than traditional or historical test repeat ordering frequency. Ordering tests more frequently is unlikely to provide clinically meaningful results, and may contribute to iatrogenic anemia. Iatrogenic anemia can worsen patient outcomes. Laboratorians can play an active role in drawing awareness to and/or acting to reduce these types of orders.
Chami N, Simons JE, Sweetman A, Don-Wauchope AC. Rates of inappropriate laboratory test utilization in Ontario. Clin Bioch 2017:50;822-7. PMID: 28483406.
Compton M, Szklarski P, Booth G. Duplicate type and screen testing waste in the clinical laboratory. Arch Path Lab Med 2018; 142(3):358-63. PMID: 29210591.
Eaton K, Levy K, Soong C, et al. Evidence-based guidelines to eliminate repetitive laboratory testing. JAMA Int Med 2017:177(12);1833-9. PMID: 29049500.
Lang T, Croal B. National minimum retesting intervals in pathology. A final report detailing consensus recommendations for minimum retesting intervals for use in pathology. 2015. Report by The Royal College of Pathologists.
Tchou MJ, Girdwood ST, Wormser B, Poole M, David-Rodriguez S, Caldwell JT, et al. Reducing electrolyte testing in hospitalized children by using quality improvement methods. Pediatrics 2018:141(5):e20173187. PMID: 29618583.
With modern instrumentation, analytical precision is very high when the result is within the reportable range and no delta checks have failed. Providing that sample integrity and performance validity has been confirmed, repeating critical values rarely changes the result. However, turnaround time is significantly increased. This can delay clinical action, negatively impact patient care, and increase the likelihood of unnecessary investigations.
Lehman CM, Howanitz PJ, Souers R, Karcher DS. Utility of repeat testing of critical values. A Q-probes analysis of 86 clinical laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2014:138:788-93. PMID: 24878017.
Motie PB, Zare-Mirzaie A, Kadivar M. Does routine repeat testing of critical laboratory values improve their accuracy? Med J Islam Repub Iran 2015;29:176 PMID: 26034729.
Onyenekwu CP, Hudson CL, Zemlin AE, Erasmus RT. The impact of repeat-testing of common chemistry analytes at critical concentrations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52(12):1739-45. PMID: 24940715.
Sun SP, Garcia J, Hayden JA. Repeating critical hematology and coagulation values wastes resources, lengthens turnaround time, and delays clinical action. Am J Clin Path 2018:149;247-52. PMID: 29425259.
Over-testing is a recognized problem, and evidence supports multi-faceted interventions that capitalize on advances in computer-based ordering technology. Bundling of tests may provide results that are not necessary for the ordering professional and may lead to duplication of testing or unnecessary follow-up. Order sets should be regularly reviewed. Research supports increased collaboration of all healthcare providers, including laboratory personnel, in combating over-testing. Laboratory professionals can be involved at all stages of interventions from problem recognition, feedback provision, to participation in the creation of supportive education materials and ordering guidelines.
Ferraro S, Panteghini M. The role of the laboratory in ensuring appropriate test requests. Clin Bioch 2017;50(10-11):555-61. PMID: 28284827.
Jackups R, Szymanski J, Persaud S. Clinical decision support for hematology laboratory test utilization. Int J Lab Hem 2017;39:128-35. PMID: 28447421.
Krasowski M, Chudzik D, Dolezal A, Steussy B, Gailey M, Koch B, et al. Promoting improved utilization of laboratory testing through changes in an electronic medical record: Experience at an academic medical center. BMC Med Inform Decision 2015;15(1):11. PMID: 25880934.
Rubinstein M, Hirsch R, Cornish N. Effectiveness of practises to support appropriate laboratory test utilization. A laboratory medicine best practises systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Clin Path 2018;149(30):197-221. PMID: 29471324.
Nazerian P, Vannit S, Fanelli A, Fallai L, Duranti C, Ognibene A, et al. Appropriate use of laboratory test requests in the emergency department: a multilevel intervention. Eur J Emerg Med 2019;26(3):205-11. PMID: 29176456.
Standing orders without an expiry or review date allow testing to be performed repetitively for extended periods of time. This type of testing is rarely clinically necessary without regularly reviewing the validity of the order. This contributes to overutilization of laboratory tests, and may exacerbate the development of iatrogenic anemia.
Raad S, Elliot R, Dickerson E, Khan B, Diab K. Reduction of laboratory utilization in the intensive care unit. J Int Care Med 2017:32(8);500-7. PMID: 27251106.
Studnicki J, Bradham D, Marshburn J, Foulis P, Straumfjord J. Measuring the impact of standing orders on laboratory utilization. Lab Med 1992:23(1);24-8.
Wertheim B, Aguirre A, Bhattacharyya R, Chorba J, Jadhav A, Kerry V, et al. An educational and administrative intervention to promote rational laboratory test ordering on an academic general medicine service. Am J Med 2017:130(10);47-53. PMID: 27619354.
Iturrate E, Jubelt L, Volpicelli F, Hochman K. Optimize your electronic medical record to increase value: Reducing laboratory overutilization. Am J Med 2016;129(2):215-20. PMID: 26475957.