4.6 Article

Haemolysis index - an estimate of preanalytical quality in primary health care

Journal

CLINICAL CHEMISTRY AND LABORATORY MEDICINE
Volume 47, Issue 8, Pages 940-944

Publisher

WALTER DE GRUYTER & CO
DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2009.227

Keywords

blood specimen collection; haemolysis; medical errors; primary health care; quality indicators

Funding

  1. Faculty of Medicine, Umea University, Umea, Sweden
  2. Vasterbotten County Council in Sweden

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Haemolysis is usually caused by inadequate specimen collection or preanalytical handling, and is suggested to be a suitable indicator of preanalytical quality. We investigated the prevalence of detectable haemolysis in all routine venous blood samples to identify differences in preanalytical quality. Methods: Haemolysis index (HI) values were obtained from a Vitros 5,1 in the routine clinical chemistry laboratory for samples collected in primary health care centres (PHCs), nursing homes, and a hospital emergency department (ED). Haemolysis was defined as a HI >= 15 (detection limit). Results: Samples from the PHC with the highest prevalence of haemolysis were 6.1 times (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.0-9.2) more often haemolysed compared to the centre with the lowest prevalence. Of the samples collected in primary health care, 10.4% were haemolysed compared to 31.1% in the ED (p < 0.001). A notable difference in haemolysed samples was found between the ED section staffed by emergency medicine physicians and the section staffed by primary health care physicians (34.8% vs. 11.3%, p < 0.001). Conclusions: The significant variation in haemolysis indices among the investigated units is likely to reflect varying preanalytical conditions. The HI is a valuable tool for estimation and follow-up of preanalytical quality in primary health care. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:940-4.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available