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 L. Sciacovelli

Garantire la comparabilità dei risultati nel rispetto dei requisiti di qualità e delle esigenze organizzative: l’esempio di una procedura operativa
How to guarantee the comparability of test results in compliance with the quality requirements andorganizational needs: the example of an operative procedure
<p>Medical laboratories are responsible for the qualityof test results, also when the same patient sample is evaluated using different analytical systems within the same lab.Indeed, as stated by ISO 15189:2012, laboratories should define means to compare procedures for evaluating thecomparability of patients&rsquo; samples results within the same healthcare system. In this study we report the approachused to define a procedure for assessing results comparability, developed in our laboratory before the ISO15189:2012 accreditation in 2016. Firstly, the approach was focused on the identification of all the different situationsthat may potentially require alignment of test results within the laboratory. Therefore, after evaluating guidelines anddocuments available in the literature, we defined a workflow applicable both to quantitative and qualitative methods.For quantitative methods, bias was estimated by means of statistical analyses such as Bland Altman and PassingBablok. For qualitative methods, results comparability was assessed by concordance. Criteria for defining theacceptability of systematic errors were also included in the procedure.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 43(2) 135-142
Contributi Scientifici - Scientific Papers
 
La valutazione delle prestazioni analitiche dei laboratori mediante programmi di valutazione esterna di qualità: una analisi multifattoriale
The evaluation of laboratories’ analytical performance through external quality assessment programs: amultifaceted analysis
<p>The Italian accreditation body, Accredia, requires that clinical laboratories obtained positiveanalytical performances in the last four External Quality Assessment (EQA) surveys in order to undertake theaccreditation with flexible scope (document RT-26).<br />In addition to the choice of acceptability limits (AL), other factors contribute to define the analytical performance:nature and commutability of control materials, definition of target value (TV), homogeneous group classification, dataelaboration, procedures for outliers exclusion.<br />In this study, the creatinine performances of 106 participants, obtained in the last four surveys of the year 2017 ofthe Centre of Biomedical Research (CRB) EQA program, have been evaluated using two different AL and TV: the ALproposed by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) and by the RegionalReference Centre of the Azienda Ospedaliera Universitaria &ldquo;Careggi&rdquo; of Firenze (Italy) (CRRVEQ); the TV assignedwith the reference method (RV) and as consensus value, i.e. median of the results obtained with the same method(AV).<br />The percentage of laboratories satisfying the RT-26 requisite was different on the basis of the AL and TV considered:with the EFLM-AL, 68.8 % laboratories complied the requisite if AV was used and 60.4% if RV was applied; with theCRRVEQ-AL, 50.0% and 48.1%, respectively.<br />These data demonstrate that harmonized criteria and procedures for evaluation of EQA results are needed to obtainhomogeneous classification of laboratories&rsquo; performance.<br />In order to support the laboratory professionals in accreditation processes and, above all, to guarantee theirperformance reliability, time has come that the Scientific Societies of Laboratory Medicine promote the merging of thedifferent Italian EQA schemes in a consolidated network of EQA providers.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 43(2) 168-172
Opinioni - Opinion
 
Protocollo operativo per la verifica della comparabilità dei risultati di laboratorio ottenuti su più procedure analitiche
Protocol to verify the comparability of quantitative laboratory results obtained with different measurementprocedures.
<p>With the growth and merging of clinical laboratories, very frequently analytical tests are performed onmultiple instruments within one or multiple locations. In these situations, there is the need of verifying thecomparability of patient results obtained with different analysers and/or different measurement procedures. Theimportance of this verification is further emphasised when considering that it is included into the ISO 15189specifications. This protocol provides step-by-step guidance on how to assess results comparability in differentscenarios. Up to four experimental designs are presented to meet laboratories&rsquo; needs, with details and examples onfrequency of testing, definition of acceptability criteria, samples selection, sample size calculation, statistical analysisand reporting.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 43(2) 228-243
Documenti SIBioC - SIBioC Documents
 
La check list in medicina di laboratorio quale strumento di assicurazione della qualità e sicurezza del paziente: l'esempio del prelievo venoso
Check-list in laboratory medicine: an important tool to improve patient safety. The blood collection
A. Aita  |  R. Marin  |  C. Pozzato  |  E. Piva  |  L. Sciacovelli  |  M. Plebani  | 
<p>This work aims to describe the results concerning the implementation of a check-list (CL) on blood collection procedures as a tool to prevent errors in laboratory medicine. Literature and operating procedures carried out in three outpatients phlebotomy sites (SMa, SMb, PN) were analysed to identify check-points (CPs). CL draft was evaluated by a multidisciplinary team and tested for one month (September 2014) by 25 physicians and 15 nurses. The filled in CLs were analysed together with the involved staff and a final version was released. CL effectiveness was evaluated immediately after experimentation and one year later. 5661 CL were filled in, out of 9469 venipunctures (59.8%). The percentages of CPs filled in within SMa, SMb and PN were respectively: 100% patient identification and label-sample-identification matching; 80.2, 73.1 and 51.9% vein selection; 96.7, 95.8 and 97.9% needle selection; 82.5, 85.8 and 89.9% tourniquet application time; 98.9, 97.9 and 98.7% tubes filling; 98.4, 97.4 and 98.7% tubes mixing; 27.6, 23.5 and 15% temperature transport; 16.4, 20.8 and 1.3% time transport. The percentages of unsuitable samples in SM and PN were respectively: 0.040 and 0.013% (September 2014); 0.041 and 0.012% (October 2014); 0.024 and 0.16% (September-October 2015). The insufficient number of available CLs, difficulties over communication concerning purpose and methodology, and patients crowding affected the results in SM; anyway the CL was very helpful for trainees. An effective CL should: include only critical CPs, be shared with the staff, take into account organizational peculiarities. CL is a powerful tool to ensure patient safety only when it becomes an integral part of quality management system.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 42(2) 131-140
Contributi Scientifici - Scientific papers
 
Armonizzazione della notifica dei valori critici come contributo al miglioramento della sicurezza e della cura del paziente
Harmonization of the notification of critical values as contribution to the improvement of patient safety and care
<p>A project for harmonizing the notification of critical values was performed in our department, which covers 3&nbsp;different hospitals. We achieved the harmonization of definitions by distinguishing critical values, critical tests and&nbsp;abnormal results, according to the Joint Commission proposal. For critical tests, the requesting physicians should&nbsp;verify the availability of results as soon as possible, while the laboratory professionals must ensure appropriate and&nbsp;timely results. As an example, all requests from the Emergency Room are relevant and considered as critical tests,&nbsp;avoiding overload of alarms or calls, which distract the busy medical team. Identification of critical values was based&nbsp;on consensus, guidelines and clinicians&rsquo; opinion. The practice was harmonized by automated notification systems&nbsp;and by establishing who should report critical values on an established time frame to the responsible licensed&nbsp;caregiver, so that the patient can be promptly treated. Timeliness was linked with clinical effectiveness with the aim<br />to provide the best outcome at the lowest cost. Finally, harmonization was directed to develop quality indicators&nbsp;regarding the policies of critical value communication, the monitoring of the timeliness in reporting and the need to&nbsp;evaluate how the effectiveness of improved communication assures better clinical outcomes. The realization of&nbsp;harmonized critical value notification may support the clinical decision making, leading to an improvement in patient&nbsp;safety and care.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 39(6) 595-600
Contributi scientifici - Scientific Papers
 
Gli indicatori di qualità nel processo di armonizzazione in Medicina di Laboratorio
Harmonization of quality indicators in Laboratory Medicine
<p>According to the International Standard for medical&nbsp;laboratories accreditation ISO 15189:2012, the laboratory should establish and periodically review quality indicators&nbsp;(QIs) to monitor and evaluate performance throughout critical aspects of pre-, intra and post-analytical processes.&nbsp;The use of QIs is needed to provide information and accountability to users and to establish a program of continuous&nbsp;improvement to ensure the quality of care and patient safety. In this context, we designed a QIs system as a part of&nbsp;a coherent and integrated quality improvement strategy. The management of QIs is based on an internal assessment&nbsp;system (IAS), which allows us to evaluate our performance over time and on the participation in an interlaboratory&nbsp;comparison managed as an EQA program, in order to compare our performance with other laboratories. The IAS&nbsp;includes a list of QIs, a form describing the specifications of each QI and a standard operating procedure. We&nbsp;participated in the project developed by the Working Group &ldquo;Laboratory errors and patient safety&rdquo; of IFCC on QIs.&nbsp;The project aims to identify a model of QIs that can be used worldwide through an EQA program. This paper aims to&nbsp;stimulate harmonization initiatives concerning QIs on the basis of the method and results of described experience.</p>
Biochimica Clinica ; 39(6) 601-608
Contributi scientifici - Scientific Papers
 
Linee guida per la gestione dei programmi di Valutazione Esterna di Qualità
Guidelines for External Quality Assessment Scheme organization
Biochimica Clinica ; 35(2) 107
DOCUMENTI SIBioC - SIBioC Documents