Advertisement

How to achieve quality for POCT through risk management

  • James H. Nichols

Abstract

The POCT coordination, responsible for the quality assessment, should implement risk management principles for all POCT processes within a hospital. This chapter portrays frequent errors in the course of POCT and shows how quality control measures can reduce errors and prevent the generation of incorrect test results. Thus, the whole quality assessment requires a structured risk management by applying an individualized quality control plan (IQCP). This plan provides the opportunity to bring together multidisciplinary teams, engendering a better understanding of the weaknesses and limitations inherent to the testing processes. An IQCP can reduce errors, save costs, improve staff efficiency and enhance patient care for POCT.

References

  1. 1.
    Alreja G, Setia N, Nichols J, Pantanowitz L (2011) Reducing patient identification errors related to glucose point- of-care testing. J Pathol Inform 2: 22. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3097526/CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balogh EP, Miller BT, Ball JR (2015) Improving diagnosis in healthcare. Committee on Diagnostic Error in Health Care; Board on Health Care Services; Institute of Medicine; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. Washington, DC. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21794/improving-diagnosis-in-health-care
  3. 3.
    Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F (2002) Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 48: 691–8Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    CDC (2015) Ready? Set? Test! Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology, and Laboratory Services, Division of Laboratory Systems. Atlanta, GA. http://wwwn.cdc.gov/clia/Resources/WaivedTests/pdf/15_255581-A_Stang_RST_Booklet_508Final.pdf
  5. 5.
    Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (2011) EP23-A: Laboratory Quality Control Based on Risk Management; Approved Guideline. CLSI, Wayne, PAGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    CMS (2015) State Operations Manual, Appendix C – Survey Procedures and Interpretive Guidelines for Laboratories and Laboratory Services. Rev. 147. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Washington, DC. www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/CLIA/Interpretive_Guidelines_for_Laboratories.html
  7. 7.
    Davis K, Schoenbaum SC, Collins KS, Tenney K, Hughes DL, Audet A-MJ (2002) Room for improvement: Patients report on the quality of their health care. The Commonwealth Fund. http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2002/apr/room-for-improvement–patients-report-on-the-quality-of-their-health-care
  8. 8.
    FDA (2010) Use of Fingerstick Devices on More Than One Person Poses Risk for Transmitting Bloodborne Pathogens. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Washington, D.C. http://www.fda.gov/Medical Devices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/ucm224025.htm
  9. 9.
    FDA (2015) Useful Tips to Increase Accuracy and Reduce Errors in Test Results from Glucose Meters, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Washington, D.C. http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/Safety/AlertsandNotices/TipsandArticlesonDeviceSafety/ucm109519.htm
  10. 10.
    International Organization for Standardization (2014) ISO/IEC Guide 51. Safety aspects – Guidelines for their inclusion in standards. ISO, Genf, SchweizGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kohn LT, Corrigan JM, Donaldson MS (1999) To err is human: Building a safer health system. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Leape LL (1994) Error in medicine. JAMA 272: 1851–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Leape LL, Brennan TA, Laird N, Lawthers AG, Localio AR, Barnes BA, Hebert L, Newhouse JP, Weiler PC, Hiatt H (1991) The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II. N Eng J Med 324:377–84CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    O’Kane MJ, McManus P, McGowen N, Lynch PLM (2011) Quality error rates in Point-of-Care Testing. Clin Chem 9:1267–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force. Doing What Counts for Patient Safety: Federal Actions to Reduce Medical Errors and Their Impact. A Report of the Quality Interagency Coordination Task Force (QuIC) to the President. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Washington DC, August 2000. http://archive.ahrq.gov/quic/report/mederr4.htm
  16. 16.
    Reason J (2000) Human Error: Models and Management. BMJ 320:768–70CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rust MJ, Carlson NA, Nichols JH (2012) A thermo-modulating container for transport and storage of glucose meters in a cold weather environment. Point of Care 11(3): 157–60Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Silverman BC, Humbertson SK, Stem JE, Nichols JH (2000) Operational errors cause inaccurate glucose results. Diabetes Care 23:429–30CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Silverstein MD (2003) An approach to medical errors and patient safety in laboratory services. A white paper prepared for the quality institute meeting, making the laboratory a partner in patient safety. Division of Laboratory Systems, Centers for Disease control and Prevention. Atlanta, GA. http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.615.4936&rep=rep1&type=pdf
  20. 20.
    Vanhaeren S, Duport C, Magneney M, Dumé L, Dumenil AS, Doucet-Populaire F, Decousser JW (2011) Bacterial contamination of glucose test strips: Not to be neglected. Am J Infect Control 39:611–3CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • James H. Nichols
    • 1
  1. 1.4918D TVC (The Vanderbilt Clinic)Vanderbilt University School of MedicineNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations