Pre-analytical issues in the haemostasis laboratory: guidance for the clinical laboratories

Ensuring quality has become a daily requirement in laboratories. In haemostasis, even more than in other disciplines of biology, quality is determined by a pre-analytical step that encompasses all procedures, starting with the formulation of the medical question, and includes patient preparation, sample collection, handling,transportation, processing, and storage until time of analysis. This step, based on a variety of manual activities, is the most vulnerable part of the total testing process and is a major component of the reliability and validity of results in haemostasis and constitutes the most important source of erroneous or un-interpretable results. Pre-analytical errors may occur throughout the testing process and arise from unsuitable, inappropriate or wrongly handled procedures. Problems may arise during the collection of blood specimens such as misidentification of the sample, use of inadequate devices or needles, incorrect order of draw, prolonged tourniquet placing, unsuccessful attempts to locate the vein, incorrect use of additive tubes, collection of unsuitable samples for quality or quantity, inappropriate mixing of a sample, etc. Some factors can alter the result of a sample constituent after collection during transportation, preparation and storage. Laboratory errors can often have serious adverse consequences. Lack of standardized procedures for sample collection accounts for most of the errors encountered within the total testing process. They can also have clinical consequences as well as a significant impact on patient care, especially those related to specialized tests as these are often considered as “diagnostic”. Controlling pre-analytical variables is critical since this has a direct influence on the quality of results and on their clinical reliability. The accurate standardization of the pre-analytical phase is of pivotal importance for achieving reliable results of coagulation tests and should reduce the side effects of the influence factors. This review is a summary of the most important recommendations regarding the importance of pre-analytical factors for coagulation testing and should be a tool to increase awareness about the importance of pre-analytical factors for coagulation testing

Physician Effectiveness in Interventions to Improve Cardiovascular Medication Adherence: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Medications for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease save lives but adherence is often inadequate. The optimal role for physicians in improving adherence remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: Using existing evidence, we set the goal of evaluating the physician\u27s role in improving medication adherence. DESIGN: We conducted systematic searches of English-language peer-reviewed publications in MEDLINE and EMBASE from 1966 through 12/31/2008. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTIONS: We selected randomized controlled trials of interventions to improve adherence to medications used for preventing or treating cardiovascular disease or diabetes. MAIN MEASURES: Articles were classified as either (1) physician active -a physician participated in designing or implementing the intervention; (2) physician passive -physicians treating intervention group patients received patient adherence information while physicians treating controls did not; or (3) physicians noninvolved. We also identified studies in which healthcare professionals helped deliver the intervention. We did a meta-analysis of the studies involving healthcare professionals to determine aggregate Cohen\u27s D effect sizes (ES). KEY RESULTS: We identified 6,550 articles; 168 were reviewed in full, 82 met inclusion criteria. The majority of all studies (88.9%) showed improved adherence. Physician noninvolved studies were more likely (35.0% of studies) to show a medium or large effect on adherence compared to physician-involved studies (31.3%). Among interventions requiring a healthcare professional, physician-noninvolved interventions were more effective (ES 0.47; 95% CI 0.38-0.56) than physician-involved interventions (ES 0.25; 95% CI 0.21-0.29; p \u3c 0.001). Among physician-involved interventions, physician-passive interventions were marginally more effective (ES 0.29; 95% CI 0.22-0.36) than physician-active interventions (ES 0.23; 95% CI 0.17-0.28; p = 0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Adherence interventions utilizing non-physician healthcare professionals are effective in improving cardiovascular medication adherence, but further study is needed to identify the optimal role for physicians