Editor-in-chief
Maria Stella Graziani

Deputy Director
Martina Zaninotto

Associate Editors
Ferruccio Ceriotti
Davide Giavarina
Bruna Lo Sasso
Giampaolo Merlini
Martina Montagnana
Andrea Mosca
Paola Pezzati
Rossella Tomaiuolo
Matteo Vidali

International Advisory Board Khosrow Adeli Canada
Sergio Bernardini Italy
Marcello Ciaccio Italy
Eleftherios Diamandis Canada
Philippe Gillery France
Kjell Grankvist Sweden
Hans Jacobs The Netherlands
Eric Kilpatrick UK
Magdalena Krintus Poland
Giuseppe Lippi Italy
☩Howard Morris Australia
Mario Plebani Italy
Sverre Sandberg Norway
Ana-Maria Simundic Croatia
☩Jill Tate Australia
Tommaso Trenti Italy
Cas Weykamp The Netherlands
Maria Willrich USA
Paul Yip Canada


Publisher
Biomedia srl
Via L. Temolo 4, 20126 Milano

Responsible Editor
Giuseppe Agosta

Editorial Secretary
Arianna Lucini Paioni
Biomedia srl
Via L. Temolo 4, 20126 Milano
Tel. 0245498282
email: biochimica.clinica@sibioc.it



Area soci
Non possiedi o non ricordi la password!
Clicca qui

BC: Articoli scritti da M.L. Ciardelli

Sicurezza del paziente e rischio clinico nel processo ematologico di laboratorio
Patient safety and clinical risk in the clinical laboratory haematological process
<p>&nbsp;Patient safety, defined as the prevention of harm to patients, is the ultimate goal for medical laboratories. Risk management principles should therefore be considered an integral part of laboratory processes, especially of those activities directly impacting on patient care. This work aims to identify the most critical phases of haematological process and the risk reduction actions that improve patient safety. Risk analysis of the laboratory haematological process was carried out through Failure Mode, Effects and Analysis Criticality methodology. A form including the phases of the process, error modes and their possible effects, errors occurrence, detectability and severity scores and risk index (RI), has been prepared and sent to eight Italian laboratories. A multidisciplinary team performed the analysis in each laboratory, then two team leaders of the project comprehensively analysed the collected data. The process was divided in 8 phases (medical prescription, request acceptance, sample collection, transportation, reception and processing, results reporting and validation), 25 activities (17 pre-analytical, 4 intra-analytical, 4 post-analytical) and 43 failure modes. RI, calculated for each activity, ranged from 11 to 33. The most critical topics (RI &gt;25) were: patient identification, peripheral blood smear review, interpretative comments and report validation. Staff training plays a central role in the entire laboratory haematological process and in the phases identified as critical. An effective management related to the attainment and maintenance of skills represents the best action in order to reduce risks of adverse events for patients. The promotion of procedures aimed to harmonize the interpretative comments and peripheral blood smear review is also pivotal</p><p>&nbsp;</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 42(5) 300-312
Contributi Scientifici - Scientific Paper
 
Valutazione multicentrica dei conteggi cellulari ottenuti con 8 analizzatori ematologici automatici
Multicenter evaluation of blood cell counts on 8 automated hematology analyzers
<p>The cellular analysis&nbsp;performed on hematology analyzers is based on the interaction of cells with electrical or optical signals. The&nbsp;heterogeneity of adopted methods and technologies by different analyzers can translate in a lack of homogeneity in&nbsp;analytical performance. This study compares 8 hematological analyzers vs. optical microscopy (OM) and, where&nbsp;possible, also compares the analyzers among each other. Correlations were assessed by Pearson&#39;s coefficient of&nbsp;correlation, Passing and Bablock regression and Bland-Altman bias plot analysis. The comparison among analyzers&nbsp;regarding leukocyte differential counts showed a good level of agreement, except for the basophil cell count. For this&nbsp;&ldquo;critical population&rdquo;, the bias ranged from -5,8% (Cell-Dyn Sapphire vs. XN-9000) to 30,6% (Advia 2120i vs. XE-2100). The comparison between automated differential leukocyte counts and OM showed also a good level of&nbsp;agreement, with a bias ranging from -0,9% to 8.9%. The bias for basophil cell count was however very high (79.5%).</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 40(3) 195-203
Contributi scientifici - Scientific Papers