To ensure that clinical laboratories produce results that are both accurate and of clinical utility it is essential that only samples of adequate quality are analysed. Although various studies and databases assessing the stability of analytes in different settings do exist, guidance on how to perform and report stability studies is lacking. This results in studies that often do not report essential information, thus compromising transferability of the data. The aim of this manuscript is to describe the C hecklist for R eporting S tability S tudies (CRESS) against which future studies should be reported to ensure standardisation of reporting and easy assessment of transferability of studies to other healthcare settings. The EFLM WG-PRE (European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase) produced the CRESS checklist following a detailed literature review and extensive discussions resulting in consensus agreement. The checklist consists of 20 items covering all the aspects that should be considered when producing a report on a stability study including details of what should be included for each item and a rationale as to why. Adherence to the CRESS checklist will ensure that studies are reported in a transparent and replicable way. This will allow other laboratories to assess whether published data meet the stability criteria required in their own particular healthcare scenario. The EFLM WG-PRE encourage researchers and authors to use the CRESS checklist as a guide to planning stability studies and to produce standardised reporting of future stability studies.

It has been well reported over recent years that most errors within the total testing process occur in the pre-analytical phase (46%–68.2%), an area that is usually outside of the direct control of the laboratory and which includes sample collection (phlebotomy). National and international (WHO, CLSI) guidelines recommend that the order of draw of blood during phlebotomy should be blood culture/sterile tubes, then plain tubes/gel tubes, then tubes containing additives. This prevents contamination of sample tubes with additives from previous tubes that could cause erroneous results. There have been a number of studies recently looking at whether order of draw remains a problem with modern phlebotomy techniques and materials, or it is an outdated practice followed simply because of historical reasons. In the following article, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for the Preanalytical Phase (EFLM WG-PRE) provides an overview and summary of the literature with regards to order of draw in venous blood collection. Given the evidence presented in this article, the EFLM WG-PRE herein concludes that a significant frequency of sample contamination does occur if order of draw is not followed during blood collection and when performing venipuncture under less than ideal circumstances, thus putting patient safety at risk. Moreover, given that order of draw is not difficult to follow and knowing that ideal phlebotomy conditions and protocols are not always followed or possible, EFLM WG-PRE supports the continued recommendation of ensuring a correct order of draw for venous blood collection.

Background: Most errors in the clinical laboratory occur in the preanalytical phase. This study aimed to comprehensively describe the prevalence and nature of preanalytical quality monitoring practices in UK clinical laboratories. Methods: A survey was sent on behalf of the Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine Preanalytical Working Group (ACB-WG-PA) to all heads of department of clinical laboratories in the UK. The survey captured data on the analytical platform and Laboratory Information Management System in use; which preanalytical errors were recorded and how they were classified and gauged interest in an external quality assurance scheme for preanalytical errors. Results: Of the 157 laboratories asked to participate, responses were received from 104 (66.2%). Laboratory error rates were recorded per number of specimens, rather than per number of requests in 51% of respondents. Aside from serum indices for haemolysis, icterus and lipaemia, which were measured in 80% of laboratories, the most common errors recorded were booking-in errors (70.1%) and sample mislabelling (56.9%) in laboratories who record preanalytical errors. Of the laboratories surveyed, 95.9% expressed an interest in guidance on recording preanalytical error and 91.8% expressed interest in an external quality assurance scheme. Conclusions: This survey observes a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical errors in the UK. Data indicate there is a lot of interest in improving preanalytical data collection. The ACB-WG-PA aims to produce guidance and support for laboratories to standardize preanalytical data collection and to help establish and validate an external quality assurance scheme for interlaboratory comparison.

Objectives: Knowledge of the stability of analytes in clinical specimens is a prerequisite for proper transport and preservation of samples to avoid laboratory errors. The new version of ISO 15189:2022 and the European directive 2017/746 increase the requirements on this topic for manufacturers and laboratories. Within the project to generate a stability database of European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group Preanalytical Phase (WG-PRE), the need to standardise and improve the quality of published stability studies has been detected, being a manifest deficit the absence of international guidelines for the performance of stability studies on clinical specimens. Methods: These recommendations have been developed and summarised by consensus of the WG-PRE and are intended primarily to improve the quality of sample stability claims included in information for users provided by assay supplier companies, according to the requirements of the new European regulations and standards for accreditation. Results: This document provides general recommendations for the performance of stability studies, oriented to the estimation of instability equations in the usual working conditions, allowing flexible adaptation of the maximum permissible error specifications to obtain stability limits adapted to the intended use. Conclusions: We present this recommendation based on the opinions of the EFLM WG-PRE group for the standardisation and improvement of stability studies, with the intention to improve the quality of the studies and the transferability of their results to laboratories.

Preanalytical errors have previously been shown to contribute a significant proportion of errors in laboratory processes and contribute to a number of patient safety risks. Accreditation against ISO 15189:2012 requires that laboratory Quality Management Systems consider the impact of preanalytical processes in areas such as the identification and control of non-conformances, continual improvement, internal audit and quality indicators. Previous studies have shown that there is a wide variation in the definition, repertoire and collection methods for preanalytical quality indicators. The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry Working Group on Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety has defined a number of quality indicators for the preanalytical stage, and the adoption of harmonized definitions will support interlaboratory comparisons and continual improvement. There are a variety of data collection methods, including audit, manual recording processes, incident reporting mechanisms and laboratory information systems. Quality management processes such as benchmarking, statistical process control, Pareto analysis and failure mode and effect analysis can be used to review data and should be incorporated into clinical governance mechanisms. In this paper, The Association for Clinical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine PreAnalytical Specialist Interest Group review the various data collection methods available. Our recommendation is the use of the laboratory information management systems as a recording mechanism for preanalytical errors as this provides the easiest and most standardized mechanism of data capture.

Patient safety is a leading challenge in healthcare and from the laboratory perspective it is now well established that preanalytical errors are the major contributor to the overall rate of diagnostic and therapeutic errors. To address this, the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine Working Group for Preanalytical Phase (EFLM WG-PRE) was established to lead in standardization and harmonization of preanalytical policies and practices at a European level. One of the key activities of the WG-PRE is the organization of the biennial EFLM-BD conference on the preanalytical phase to provide a forum for National Societies (NS) to discuss their issues. Since 2012, a year after the first Preanalytical phase conference, there has been a rapid growth in the number of NS with a working group engaged in preanalytical phase activities and there are now at least 19 countries that have one. As a result of discussions with NS at the third conference held in March 2015 five key areas were identified as requiring harmonisation. These were test ordering, sample transport and storage, patient preparation, sampling procedures and management of unsuitable specimens. The article below summarises the work that has and will be done in these areas. The goal of this initiative is to ensure the EFLM WG-PRE produces work that meets the needs of the European laboratory medicine community. Progress made in the identified areas will be updated at the next preanalytical phase conference and show that we have produced guidance that has enhanced standardisation in the preanalytical phase and improved patient safety throughout Europe.