Laboratory diagnostics (i.e., the total testing process) develops conventionally through a virtual loop, originally referred to as “the brain to brain cycle” by George Lundberg. Throughout this complex cycle, there is an inherent possibility that a mistake might occur. According to reliable data, preanalytical errors still account for nearly 60%–70% of all problems occurring in laboratory diagnostics, most of them attributable to mishandling procedures during collection, handling, preparing or storing the specimens. Although most of these would be “intercepted” before inappropriate reactions are taken, in nearly one fifth of the cases they can produce inappropriate investigations and unjustifiable increase in costs, while generating inappropriate clinical decisions and causing some unfortunate circumstances. Several steps have already been undertaken to increase awareness and establish a governance of this frequently overlooked aspect of the total testing process. Standardization and monitoring preanalytical variables is of foremost importance and is associated with the most efficient and well-organized laboratories, resulting in reduced operational costs and increased revenues. As such, this article is aimed at providing readers with significant updates on the total quality management of the preanalytical phase to endeavour further improvement for patient safety throughout this phase of the total testing process.

Total quality in laboratory medicine should be defined as the guarantee that each activity throughout the total testing process is correctly performed, providing valuable medical decision-making and effective patient care. In the past decades, a 10-fold reduction in the analytical error rate has been achieved thanks to improvements in both reliability and standardization of analytical techniques, reagents, and instrumentation. Notable advances in information technology, quality control and quality assurance methods have also assured a valuable contribution for reducing diagnostic errors. Nevertheless, several lines of evidence still suggest that most errors in laboratory diagnostics fall outside the analytical phase, and the pre- and postanalytical steps have been found to be much more vulnerable. This collective paper, which is the logical continuum of the former already published in this journal 2 years ago, provides additional contribution to risk management in the preanalytical phase and is a synopsis of the lectures of the 2nd European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM)-Becton Dickinson (BD) European Conference on Preanalytical Phase meeting entitled “Preanalytical quality improvement: in quality we trust” (Zagreb, Croatia, 1–2 March 2013). The leading topics that will be discussed include quality indicators for preanalytical phase, phlebotomy practices for collection of blood gas analysis and pediatric samples, lipemia and blood collection tube interferences, preanalytical requirements of urinalysis, molecular biology hemostasis and platelet testing, as well as indications on best practices for safe blood collection. Auditing of the preanalytical phase by ISO assessors and external quality assessment for preanalytical phase are also discussed.

By writing scientific articles we communicate science among colleagues and peers. By doing this, it is our responsibility to adhere to some basic principles like transparency and accuracy. Authors, journal editors and reviewers need to be concerned about the quality of the work submitted for publication and ensure that only studies which have been designed, conducted and reported in a transparent way, honestly and without any deviation from the truth get to be published. Any such trend or deviati-on from the truth in data collection, analysis, interpretation and publication is called bias. Bias in rese-arch can occur either intentionally or unintentionally. Bias causes false conclusions and is potentially misleading. Therefore, it is immoral and unethical to conduct biased research. Every scientist should thus be aware of all potential sources of bias and undertake all possible actions to reduce or minimize the deviation from the truth. This article describes some basic issues related to bias in research.

Hemolysis is conventionally defined as membrane disruption of red blood cells and other blood cells that is accompanied by subsequent release of intracellular components into the serum or plasma. It accounts for over 60% of blood sample rejections in the laboratory and is the most common preanalytical error in laboratory medicine. Hemolysis can occur both in vivo and in vitro. Intravascular hemolysis (in vivo) is always associated with an underlying pathological condition or disease, and thus careful steps should always be taken by the laboratory to exclude in vivo hemolysis with confidence. In vitro hemolysis, on the other hand, is highly preventable. It may occur at all stages of the preanalytical phase (i.e. sample collection, transport, handling and storage), and may lead to clinically relevant, yet spurious, changes in patient results by interfering with laboratory measurements. Hemolysis interference is exerted through several mechanisms: (1) spectrophotometric interference, (2) release of intracellular components, (3) sample dilution and (4) chemical interference. The degree of interference observed depends on the level of hemolysis and also on the assay methodology. Recent evidence shows that preanalytical practices related to detection and management of hemolyzed samples are highly heterogeneous and need to be standardized. The Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE) of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) has published many recommendations for facilitating standardization and improvement of this important preanalytical issue. Some key EFLM WG-PRE publications related to hemolysis involve: (i) a call for more transparency and some practical recommendations for improving the harmonization of the automatic assessment of serum indices and their clinical usefulness, specifically the hemolysis index (H-index), (ii) recommendations on how to manage local quality assurance of serum or plasma hemolysis/icterus/lipemia-indices (HIL-indices) and (iii) recommendations on how to detect and manage hemolyzed samples in clinical chemistry testing. In this review we provide a comprehensive overview of hemolysis, including its causes and effects on clinical laboratory assays. Furthermore, we list and discuss the most recent recommendations aimed at managing hemolyzed samples in everyday practice. Given the high prevalence of hemolyzed blood samples, the associated costs, the great heterogeneity in how hemolysis is handled across healthcare settings, countries and continents, and increasing patient cross-border mobility, standardization and quality improvement processes aimed at combatting this important preanalytical problem are clearly warranted.

Quality indicators (QIs) are fundamental tools for enabling users to quantify the quality of all operational processes by comparing it against a defined criterion. QIs data should be collected over time to identify, correct, and continuously monitor defects and improve performance and patient safety by identifying and implementing effective interventions. According to the international standard for medical laboratories accreditation, the laboratory shall establish and periodically review QIs to monitor and evaluate performance throughout critical aspects of pre-, intra-, and post-analytical processes. However, while some interesting programs on indicators in the total testing process have been developed in some countries, there is no consensus for the production of joint recommendations focusing on the adoption of universal QIs and common terminology in the total testing process. A preliminary agreement has been achieved in a Consensus Conference organized in Padua in 2013, after revising the model of quality indicators (MQI) developed by the Working Group on "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The consensually accepted list of QIs, which takes into consideration both their importance and applicability, should be tested by all potentially interested clinical laboratories to identify further steps in the harmonization project.

Preanalytical phase is the most vulnerable part of the total testing process and is considered to be among the greatest challenges to the laboratory professionals. However, preanalytical activities, management of unsuitable specimens and reporting policies are not fully standardized, nor harmonized worldwide. Several standards related to blood sampling and sample transportation and handling are available, but compliance to those guidelines is low, especially outside the laboratory and if blood sampling is done without the direct supervision of the laboratory staff. Furthermore, for some most critical procedures within the preanalytical phase, internationally accepted guidelines and recommendations as well as related quality measures are unfortunately unavailable. There is large heterogeneity in the criteria for sample rejection, the different strategies by which unacceptable samples are managed, processed and test results reported worldwide. Management of unacceptable specimens warrants therefore immediate harmonization. Alongside the challenging and long road of patient safety, preanalytical phase offers room for improvement, and Editors at Biochemia Medica Journal definitely hope to continue providing a respective mean for reporting studies on different preanalytical phase topics. With pleasure and delight we invite potential future authors to submit their articles examining the quality of various preanalytical activities to Biochemia Medica. We will keep nurturing this topic as our prominent feature and by this we hope to be able to deliver valid evidence for some future guidelines and recommendations.