A-088 Clinically Significant Errors Using the Diazyme Total Bile Acid Assay on the Roche c502 Analyzer: Investigating a Result Error Identifies a Novel Large-Scale Testing Error Caused by Reagent Carryover
{"title":"A-088 Clinically Significant Errors Using the Diazyme Total Bile Acid Assay on the Roche c502 Analyzer: Investigating a Result Error Identifies a Novel Large-Scale Testing Error Caused by Reagent Carryover","authors":"L M Leonard, M A Nicklas, D R Block, N A Baumann","doi":"10.1093/clinchem/hvae106.087","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Thoroughly investigating single patient result errors may identify systemic, large-scale testing errors. The laboratory observed an event where a revision to a Total Bile Acid (TBA, Diazyme Laboratories, Inc.) patient result following a 22S quality control (QC) failure displayed a larger than expected difference (52 to 5mcmol/L). TBA is primarily used for diagnosis and monitoring of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with results >10mcmol/L considered elevated. Retrospective review of result revisions following QC failures (3/15/2017-5/30/2023) revealed that 50%(20/40) yielded result differences of >10mcmol/L(>20SD based on assay imprecision). The aim of this study was to apply a systematic approach to i) estimate the rate of TBA errors, ii) ensure accurate result reporting during investigation period, iii) perform root cause analysis (RCA), and iv) determine corrective and preventative action(s). Methods Residual samples from TBA testing (6/24-7/5/2023) were retested(n=158), differences >+/-3.0mcmol/L or 15% were confirmed on an alternate analyzer, and reports were revised. Automated repeat testing of TBA samples >10mcmol/L was operationalized 7/6/2023. Initial and repeat TBA results were compared(n=448) and results differing by >+/-20% were remeasured on an alternate analyzer. RCA was conducted using a fishbone diagram. NaOH reagent probe washes were implemented for TBA and the error rate was re-assessed. Assays run prior to TBA samples with errors (n=15) were identified. To assess reagent carryover a residual serum pool (TBA ∼5mcmol/L) was aliquoted into 5 tubes in a sample rack. The first sample in the rack was programmed to run an assay suspected of causing carryover followed by 4 TBA measurements. Mean±standard deviation(SD) TBA concentrations were calculated. TBA was also measured in the liquid reagent for amylase, lipase, acetylcholinesterase (ACE) and fructosamine. Results Initial TBA retesting yielded no errors when initial TBA was ≤10mcmol/L(n=51). For samples with TBA >10mcmol/L(n=107), 9(8.4%) had differences exceeding criteria with 8/9 being revised to ≤10mcmol/L. Analysis of automated patient repeat data showed a 3.8%(17/448) error rate when initial TBA >10mcmol/L. After NaOH reagent probe washes were implemented, the error rate decreased to 0.7%(3/448). Assays run directly before an erroneously high TBA result included: lactate, fructosamine, soluble transferrin receptor(STFR), lipase, and ACE. A serum TBA pool(mean±SD=5.1±0.4 mcmol/L,n=15) measured 37.6±1.2mcmol/L(n=3) and 6.7±0.7mcmol/L(n=3) after lipase and fructosamine, respectively. No other assays demonstrated carryover. TBA in lipase reagent compartment B and C was 653 and 649mcmol/L, respectively, and 653mcmol/L in fructosamine reagent compartment B. Conclusions A single patient TBA result revision was investigated and led to identification of reagent carryover causing erroneously high TBA results on the Roche c502 analyzer. Automatic, real-time, repeat testing was implemented to prevent reporting incorrect patient results until RCA could identify the cause. Occurrence rate of erroneous high TBA results decreased from 3.8% to 0.7% after implementation of NaOH washes on the instruments. Carryover experiments confirmed that lipase and fructosamine assays cause carryover when run prior to a TBA sample due to measurable TBA in the reagent. The lab is pursuing moving the fructosamine and lipase reagent to the Roche Cobas c701 to prevent the issue.","PeriodicalId":10690,"journal":{"name":"Clinical chemistry","volume":"9 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical chemistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/clinchem/hvae106.087","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background Thoroughly investigating single patient result errors may identify systemic, large-scale testing errors. The laboratory observed an event where a revision to a Total Bile Acid (TBA, Diazyme Laboratories, Inc.) patient result following a 22S quality control (QC) failure displayed a larger than expected difference (52 to 5mcmol/L). TBA is primarily used for diagnosis and monitoring of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with results >10mcmol/L considered elevated. Retrospective review of result revisions following QC failures (3/15/2017-5/30/2023) revealed that 50%(20/40) yielded result differences of >10mcmol/L(>20SD based on assay imprecision). The aim of this study was to apply a systematic approach to i) estimate the rate of TBA errors, ii) ensure accurate result reporting during investigation period, iii) perform root cause analysis (RCA), and iv) determine corrective and preventative action(s). Methods Residual samples from TBA testing (6/24-7/5/2023) were retested(n=158), differences >+/-3.0mcmol/L or 15% were confirmed on an alternate analyzer, and reports were revised. Automated repeat testing of TBA samples >10mcmol/L was operationalized 7/6/2023. Initial and repeat TBA results were compared(n=448) and results differing by >+/-20% were remeasured on an alternate analyzer. RCA was conducted using a fishbone diagram. NaOH reagent probe washes were implemented for TBA and the error rate was re-assessed. Assays run prior to TBA samples with errors (n=15) were identified. To assess reagent carryover a residual serum pool (TBA ∼5mcmol/L) was aliquoted into 5 tubes in a sample rack. The first sample in the rack was programmed to run an assay suspected of causing carryover followed by 4 TBA measurements. Mean±standard deviation(SD) TBA concentrations were calculated. TBA was also measured in the liquid reagent for amylase, lipase, acetylcholinesterase (ACE) and fructosamine. Results Initial TBA retesting yielded no errors when initial TBA was ≤10mcmol/L(n=51). For samples with TBA >10mcmol/L(n=107), 9(8.4%) had differences exceeding criteria with 8/9 being revised to ≤10mcmol/L. Analysis of automated patient repeat data showed a 3.8%(17/448) error rate when initial TBA >10mcmol/L. After NaOH reagent probe washes were implemented, the error rate decreased to 0.7%(3/448). Assays run directly before an erroneously high TBA result included: lactate, fructosamine, soluble transferrin receptor(STFR), lipase, and ACE. A serum TBA pool(mean±SD=5.1±0.4 mcmol/L,n=15) measured 37.6±1.2mcmol/L(n=3) and 6.7±0.7mcmol/L(n=3) after lipase and fructosamine, respectively. No other assays demonstrated carryover. TBA in lipase reagent compartment B and C was 653 and 649mcmol/L, respectively, and 653mcmol/L in fructosamine reagent compartment B. Conclusions A single patient TBA result revision was investigated and led to identification of reagent carryover causing erroneously high TBA results on the Roche c502 analyzer. Automatic, real-time, repeat testing was implemented to prevent reporting incorrect patient results until RCA could identify the cause. Occurrence rate of erroneous high TBA results decreased from 3.8% to 0.7% after implementation of NaOH washes on the instruments. Carryover experiments confirmed that lipase and fructosamine assays cause carryover when run prior to a TBA sample due to measurable TBA in the reagent. The lab is pursuing moving the fructosamine and lipase reagent to the Roche Cobas c701 to prevent the issue.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Chemistry is a peer-reviewed scientific journal that is the premier publication for the science and practice of clinical laboratory medicine. It was established in 1955 and is associated with the Association for Diagnostics & Laboratory Medicine (ADLM).
The journal focuses on laboratory diagnosis and management of patients, and has expanded to include other clinical laboratory disciplines such as genomics, hematology, microbiology, and toxicology. It also publishes articles relevant to clinical specialties including cardiology, endocrinology, gastroenterology, genetics, immunology, infectious diseases, maternal-fetal medicine, neurology, nutrition, oncology, and pediatrics.
In addition to original research, editorials, and reviews, Clinical Chemistry features recurring sections such as clinical case studies, perspectives, podcasts, and Q&A articles. It has the highest impact factor among journals of clinical chemistry, laboratory medicine, pathology, analytical chemistry, transfusion medicine, and clinical microbiology.
The journal is indexed in databases such as MEDLINE and Web of Science.