Erros pré-analíticos em medicina laboratorial: uma revisão sistemática

• Autor(a) principal: Lourenço, Patrick Menezes
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/15004
• topic: Medical Laboratory Science; Diagnostic errors; Review literature as topic; Ciência de laboratório médico; Erro de diagnóstico; Literatura de revisão como assunto; Ciência de laboratório médico Normas; Técnicas de laboratório clínico Normas; Diagnóstico de laboratório; Manejo de Espécimes Normas; Erros de diagnóstico; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::MEDICINA

The obvious relevance of preanalytical errors as a public health problem is clear in both the potential harm to patients and cost to the health system, both unnecessary and avoidable. Some studies indicate that the pre-analytical phase is the most vulnerable to errors, accounting for approximately 60-90% of laboratory errors as a result of lack guidance to patients about the procedures to be performed in the clinical laboratory. Objectives: To systematize the scientific evidence related to preanalytical errors of clinical analysis laboratory. Method: A systematic review was conducted, searching the databases of the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) , Scopus ® (which includes MEDLINE and Embase ® ), ISI Web of Knowledge ® , SciFinder ® , Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS) ( which includes the Scientific Electronic Library Online - SciELO) and the Spanish Bibliographic Index of Health Sciences (IBECS) for articles published between January 1990 and June 2012 on laboratory errors that may occur in the preanalytical phase. Studies were included according to the following laboratory tests: complete blood count, biochemical analysis of whole blood or serum, blood coagulation tests, urinalysis and hematological or biochemical analysis of other materials categorized by the type of pre - analytical error and the frequency of incidents. Results: The search in bibliographic databases resulted in the following number of items retrieved: 547 in MEDLINE, Scopus at 229, 110 in the ISI in SciFinder 163, 228 and 64 in the Lilacs IBECS, a total of 1.341 titles. At the end of the systematic review, we obtained a set of 83 articles for reading the full text, of which 14 were included in the review. The studies covered different types of laboratories, technical sectors and source of errors, according to the phase of the laboratory process. Discussion: Seven articles showed errors in the medical requisition, with a high variability in the incidence values. The six articles that studied sample collection errors observed reduction in this outcome. The proportions of reported adverse events and clinical impacts varied, leading to consequences described as: errors resulting from phlebotomy, recollection of samples, repetition of exams, delays in the release of the test results and possible harm to the patient. Conclusions: The laboratory must have written instructions for each test, which describes the type of sample and collection procedure. Identification methods by barcode, robotic and analytical systems, reduce preanalytical errors. The improvement of pre-analytical phase of laboratory tests remains a challenge for many clinical laboratories.