English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

/Objective Preanalytical errors constitute the most common errors in the laboratory, with improper specimen collection accounting for many errors. In our laboratory, we had a sentinel event related to repeated deletions of suspected IV-contaminated draws, and herein report our quality improvement project (QIP) to reduce deleted test results and IV-contaminated specimens. Methods/Case Report Our QIP initiated with creating a core-lab task force. Several interventions were launched: (A) policy/definition standardization, (B) nursing IV-line/cathedar in-services, (C) in-services on deleting test results and identifying IV-contamination, (D) policy updates to reflect no deletions without evidence of IV-contamination, and (E) mitigation steps requiring supervisory approval for result deletions. We measured: patient safety events (PSRs); RECOLLECTION comment usage and efficacy (disclaimer attached to results thought to be IV-contaminated, requesting recollection); and mitigation failures. Efficacy of the comment usage was measured by comparing subsequent collections to the original and determining likelihood of IV-contamination (contaminated, not contaminated, and unsure). Prior to the QIP, lab practice was to delete suspected IV-contaminated results and those requested by the care team. Results (if a Case Study enter NA) PSRs attributable to IV-contamination dropped from 47/mo. (time 0) to 18/mo. over an 11-month period (min-8/mo.; max-64/mo.), with the greatest decrement seen following intervention C. The RECOLLECTION comment was attached to 38 results (0.06% of total accessions) at the start and 73 results (0.12% of total accessions) at time 11 mos. and showed greatest increase in use immediately prior to interventions C and D (approximately 3-fold increase). At time 0, 54% of RECOLLECTION comments were deemed contaminated and 31% were not; at time 11mos., 74% (50/68) were contaminated and 24% (16/68) were not. Mitigation failures numbered 5/mo. initially and 1/mo. at time 11 mos. Conclusion With multiple educational and supervisory interventions, we demonstrate a reduction in PSRs attributable to IV-contamination collections at our hospital. Use of cautionary disclaimers was overall minimal and appropriately used.

Reducing IV-contaminated blood specimens in the clinical laboratory: A Quality Improvement Project