Evaluación de riesgos en el manejo de equipos para Point-of-Care Testing de ámbito hospitalario. Revisión sistemática

  1. Pérez-Castro, Andrea 1
  2. Villaverde-Piñeiro, Laura 2
  3. Cachafeiro-Pin, Ana Isabel 3
  1. 1 Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti
    info

    Hospital Universitario Lucus Augusti

    Lugo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/0416des07

  2. 2 Hospital Público de Monforte de Lemos
  3. 3 Hospital Público da Mariña
Mostrar afiliacións +
Revista:
Medicina & Laboratorio

ISSN: 0123-2576,  2500-7106

Ano de publicación: 2023

Título do exemplar: October-December

Volume: 27

Número: 4

Páxinas: 297-313

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.36384/01232576.682 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

Outras publicacións en: Medicina & Laboratorio

Resumo

Introduction. Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) devices have given rise to a new approach in the clinical laboratory. With an increase in demand for these devices and the absence of mandatory regulations to standardize their use and management, the objective of this review is to evaluate the literature on the quality management of POCT devices, as well as their impact on patient safety. Methodology. The literature search was performed using the PRISMA methodology in the Medline and Embase databases. Articles published from March 2012 to March 2022 were selected. The descriptors used were "Point of Care Testing", "Patient Safety" and "Quality Assurance". Results. The search returned 58 articles, of which 9 were selected for review. In the evaluation of these articles, preanalytical errors were detected in 6 of them, analytical errors in 3, and postanalytical errors in 4. The methodology to identify the error was carried out in a standardized manner in 7 of the selected articles. Regarding the error detected, the identification of the patient stood out, and among the corrective measures the automation of the analytical process. Conclusion. The harmonization of the analytical process through compliance with accreditation standards is essential to ensure the quality of the results. To achieve this objective, the role of the POCT coordinator through a multidisciplinary team is indispensable.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Laboratorio clínico central. Estándares y recomendaciones de calidad y seguridad. Informes, estudios e investigación 2013. Madrid, España: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad. Centro de publicaciones; 2013. Acceso 15 de mayo de 2023. Disponible en https://www.sanidad.gob.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/docs/Laboratorio_Clinico_EyR.pdf.
  • Oliver-Sáez P, Alonso-Díaz R, Lirón-Hernández J, Monzó-Inglés V, Navarro-Segarra X, Noval-Padillo JÁ, et al. Guía sobre las pruebas de laboratorio en el lugar de asistencia al paciente (POCT). Rev del Lab Clin 2016;9:60-80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labcli.2016.03.003.
  • Gómez-Gerique J. Pruebas de laboratorio en la cabecera del paciente (POCT). España: Asociación Española de Farmacéuticos Analistas (FC AEFA); 2012. ISBN: 978-84-615-6859-8.
  • Larsson A, Greig-Pylypczuk R, Huisman A. The state of point-of-care testing: a European perspective. Ups J Med Sci 2015;120:1-10. https://doi.org/10.3109/03009734.2015.1006347.
  • Florkowski C, Don-Wauchope A, Gimenez N, Rodriguez-Capote K, Wils J, Zemlin A. Point-of-care testing (POCT) and evidence-based laboratory medicine (EBLM) - does it leverage any advantage in clinical decision making? Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2017;54:471-494. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2017.1399336.
  • Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Estudio nacional sobre los efectos adversos ligados a la hospitalización. ENEAS 2005. Informe febrero 2006. Madrid, España: Ministerio de Sanidad y Consumo. Secretaría General Técnica, Centro de Publicaciones; 2006. Acceso 16 de febrero de 2023. Disponible en https://www.sanidad.gob.es/organizacion/sns/planCalidadSNS/pdf/excelencia/opsc_sp2.pdf.
  • Hallworth MJ, Epner PL, Ebert C, Fantz CR, Faye SA, Higgins TN, et al. Current evidence and future perspectives on the effective practice of patient-centered laboratory medicine. Clin Chem 2015;61:589-599. https://doi.org/10.1373/clinchem.2014.232629.
  • Benítez-Estévez AJ, Santiago MFO, Sáez PO, Hernández JL, Cantalejo FR, Mora CS, et al. Recomendaciones para la elaboración de un cuadro de mando integral para la gestión de pruebas en el lugar de asistencia del paciente (POCT). Recomendación (2017). Rev Lab Clín 2019;12:e47-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labcli.2018.09.001.
  • International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO 22870:2016 Point-of-care testing (POCT)-Requirements for quality and competence. London, United Kingdom: ISO, Online Browsing Platform (OBP); 2016. Acceso 12 de abril de 2023. Disponible en https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:22870:ed-2:v1:en.
  • Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. Bmj 2021;372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160.
  • Kousgaard MB, Siersma V, Reventlow S, Ertmann R, Felding P, Waldorff FB. The effectiveness of computer reminders for improving quality assessment for point-of-care testing in general practice--a randomized controlled trial. Implement Sci 2013;8:47. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-47.
  • Aslan B, Stemp J, Yip P, Gun-Munro J. Method precision and frequent causes of errors observed in point-of-care glucose testing: a proficiency testing program perspective. Am J Clin Pathol 2014;142:857-863. https://doi.org/10.1309/ajcpp5ys2mvskbyy.
  • Cantero M, Redondo M, Martín E, Callejón G, Hortas ML. Use of quality indicators to compare point-of-care testing errors in a neonatal unit and errors in a STAT central laboratory. Clin Chem Lab Med 2015;53:239-247. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2013-1053.
  • Shaw JL. Practical challenges related to point of care testing. Pract Lab Med 2016;4:22-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2015.12.002.
  • Corl D, Yin T, Ulibarri M, Lien H, Tylee T, Chao J, et al. What can we learn from point-of-care blood glucose values deleted and repeated by nurses? J Diabetes Sci Technol 2018;12:985-991. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932296818763891.
  • Oliver P, Fernandez-Calle P, Mora R, Diaz-Garzon J, Prieto D, Manzano M, et al. Real-world use of key performance indicators for point-of-care testing network accredited by ISO 22870. Pract Lab Med 2020;22:e00188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2020.e00188.
  • Shaw JL, McCudden CR, Colantonio DA, Booth RA, Lin DC, Blasutig IM, et al. Effective interventions to improve the quality of critically high point-of-care glucose meter results. Pract Lab Med 2020;22:e00184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2020.e00184.
  • Brun M, Füzéry AK, Henschke B, Rozak K, Venner AA. Identifying sources of error and selecting quality indicators for point of care testing. Pract Lab Med 2021;25:e00216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plabm.2021.e00216.
  • Shaw JL. Identifying and reducing errors in point-of-care testing. EJIFCC 2021;32:298-302.
  • Sciacovelli L, Panteghini M, Lippi G, Sumarac Z, Cadamuro J, Galoro CAO, et al. Defining a roadmap for harmonizing quality indicators in laboratory medicine: a consensus statement on behalf of the IFCC Working Group "Laboratory Error and Patient Safety" and EFLM Task and Finish Group "Performance specifications for the extra-analytical phases". Clin Chem Lab Med 2017;55:1478-1488. https://doi.org/10.1515/cclm-2017-0412.
  • The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). Quality indicators in laboratory medicine. Milano, Italy: The International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC); 2016. Acceso 12 de junio de 2023. Disponible en https://ifcc.org/ifcc-education-division/working-groups-special-projects/wg-leps/quality-indicators-project/.
  • Venner AA, Beach LA, Shea JL, Knauer MJ, Huang Y, Fung AWS, et al. Quality assurance practices for point of care testing programs: Recommendations by the Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists Point of Care Testing Interest group. Clin Biochem 2021;88:11-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2020.11.008.
  • Soto AB, Sáez PO. Los errores en las pruebas de cabecera pueden resultar en falsos niveles de potasio. Adv Lab Med 2022;3:147-152. https://doi.org/10.1515/almed-2022-0015.
  • Cano-de Torres I, Prieto-Menchero S. Implantación de la norma UNE EN ISO 22870 “Análisis junto al paciente. Requisitos para la calidad y la competencia”. Aspectos prácticos. España: Asociación Española del Laboratorio Clínico (AEFA); 2022. ISBN: 978-84-09-37961-3.
  • del Valle JL. El laboratorio clínico “se acerca a los servicios” mediante equipos ELA: Experiencia en Clínica Las Condes. Rev Med Clín Las Condes 2015;26:802-807. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmclc.2015.11.009.
  • Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad. Guía de Recomendaciones para ofrecer una adecuada respuesta al paciente tras la ocurrencia de un evento adverso y atender a las segundas y terceras víctimas. Grupo de Investigación en Segundas y Terceras Víctimas. España: Ministerio de Economía y Competitividad; 2015. Acceso 23 de junio de 2023. Disponible en https://seguridaddelpaciente.sanidad.gob.es/informacion/publicaciones/2015/docs/Guia-de-recomendaciones_sv-pdf.pdf.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet