SAS/TÜSKA Akreditasyonunda Post-Analitik Kalite Göstergeleri: IFCC WG-LEPS Çerçevesine Göre 12 Aylık Performans Değerlendirmesi

Abstract

Amaç: Post-analitik fazda meydana gelen hatalar, toplam laboratuvar hatalarının önemli bir bölümünü oluşturmakta ve hasta güvenliğini doğrudan etkileyebilmektedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, standart post-analitik kalite göstergeleri kullanılarak laboratuvar performansının değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Bu çalışmada, IFCC Laboratuvar Hataları ve Hasta Güvenliği Çalışma Grubu ile ISO 15189:2022 standardı tarafından önerilen post-analitik kalite göstergeleri kullanılmıştır. Veriler, 12 aylık bir süre boyunca laboratuvar bilgi yönetim sisteminden otomatik olarak elde edilmiştir. Değerlendirilen göstergeler; kritik değerlerin zamanında bildirilme oranı, post-analitik sonuçlanma süresi uyumu, sonuç düzeltme oranı, klinisyenlere ulaşmayan raporların oranı ve otovalidasyon kapsamıdır. Bulgular: Kritik değerlerin zamanında bildirilme oranı ve sonuçlanma süresi uyumunun uluslararası hedef eşiklerin (≥%95) üzerinde olduğu saptanmıştır. Sonuç düzeltme oranı düşük bulunmuş (<%0,3) ve etkin doğrulama süreçlerini göstermiştir. Raporların küçük bir bölümünün klinisyenlere ulaşmaması, elektronik raporlama sistemlerinde iyileştirilmesi gereken alanlara işaret etmiştir. Otovalidasyon kapsamı %0 bulunmuştur. Sonuç: Post-analitik kalite göstergeleri, laboratuvar performansının izlenmesi ve geliştirilmesinde etkili bir araçtır. ISO 15189:2022 gerekliliklerinin uygulanması ve otomasyonun artırılması, hasta güvenliğini destekleyebilir.

Keywords

• laboratuvar performansı
• kalite göstergeleri
• post-analitik faz
• hasta güvenliği
• laboratuvar tıbbı

Post-Analytical Quality Indicators in SAS/TUSKA Accreditation: A 12-Month Performance Evaluation Using the IFCC WG-LEPS Framework

Abstract

Aim: Errors occurring in the post-analytical phase of laboratory testing account for a substantial proportion of total laboratory errors and may directly affect patient safety. This study aimed to evaluate laboratory performance using standardized post-analytical quality indicators. Materials and Methods: Post-analytical quality indicators recommended by the IFCC Working Group on Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety (WG-LEPS) and aligned with ISO 15189:2022 were applied. Data were automatically extracted from the laboratory information management system over a 12-month period. Evaluated indicators included timely communication of critical values, post-analytical turnaround time compliance, report correction rate, proportion of reports not reaching clinicians, and auto-validation coverage. Results: Timely communication of critical values and turnaround time compliance rates exceeded international target thresholds (≥95%). The report correction rate remained low (<0.3%), indicating effective verification and validation processes. A small proportion of reports did not reach clinicians, highlighting challenges in electronic reporting systems. Conclusion: Post-analytical quality indicators provide an effective framework for monitoring laboratory performance. Implementation of ISO 15189:2022 requirements and increased use of automation may further enhance post-analytical processes and patient safety.

Keywords

• laboratory performance
• quality indicators
• post-analytical phase
• patient safety
• laboratory medicine

References

1. Sciacovelli L, Plebani M. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: state-of-the-art, quality specifications and future strategies. Clin Chem Lab Med 2023; 61: 1012-25.
2. Zaninotto M, Agnello L, Smith X, Brown Y. Assessing post-analytical phase harmonization in European laboratories: a survey. Clin Chem Lab Med 2024; 62: 450-59.
3. Zhang L, Jiang K, Chen J, Zhang Z, Zhang L, Xu M et al. Quality indicators in laboratory medicine: a 2020–2023 experience in a Chinese province. Clin Chem Lab Med 2025; 63: 33-41.
4. Davids A, Zemlin AE, Kruger EC. Challenges with communication of critical laboratory results and ISO 15189:2022 requirements. J Lab Med 2024; 48: 321-30.
5. Wongkrajang P, Leelanuwatkul S, Nuanin S, Laiwejpithaya S. Effect of laboratory critical value reporting on patient management. Ann Lab Med 2025; 45: 112-20.
6. Rimac V, Vlašić Tanasković J, Jokić A, Honović L, Podolar S et al. Implementation of autovalidation procedures to improve post-analytical processes. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2025; 35: 55-65.
7. Caballero Garralda A, Comas Reixach I, García Miralles C, Gómez Rioja R, Llopis Díaz MA et al. Use of external quality assessment in extra-analytical phases in clinical laboratories in Spain: a survey by the Spanish Society of Laboratory Medicine (SEQCML). Adv Lab Med 2025; 6: 199-205.
8. Gajjar D, Agravatt A, Khubchandani A, Parchwani DN. Evaluation of laboratory performance in consideration with pre-analytical and post-analytical quality indicators. Indian J Clin Biochem 2024; 39: 264-70.

9. International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15189:2022 – Medical laboratories – Requirements for quality and competence. Geneva: ISO; 2022.
10. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of Health. SAS/TÜSKA Quality Indicators. Available from: https://tuska.saglik.gov.tr. Accessed March 10, 2026.
11. International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC), Working Group on Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety (WG-LEPS). Quality Indicators Project. Available from: https://ifcc.org. Accessed March 10, 2026.
12. Ahmed S, Jahan F, Naeem Effendi MU, Ghani F. Impact of COVID-19 on the pre- and post-analytical clinical laboratory testing processes: a performance evaluation study using Six Sigma. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2021; 70: 102842.
13. Nam Y, Park HD. Revolutionizing laboratory practices: pioneering trends in total laboratory automation. Ann Lab Med 2025; 45: 472-83.
14. Plebani M. Errors in clinical laboratories or errors in laboratory medicine? Clin Chem Lab Med 2020; 58: 1035-37.
15. Lippi G, Plebani M. Identification and prevention of errors in the laboratory testing process. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2019; 29: 020201.
16. Hawkins RC. Managing the pre- and post-analytical phases of the total testing process. Ann Lab Med 2012; 32: 5-16.
17. Oosterhuis WP, Sandberg S. Harmonization in laboratory medicine: current issues and future perspectives. Clin Chem Lab Med 2018; 56: 1597-605.
18. Cadamuro J, Simundic AM. Automation and the future of laboratory medicine. Clin Chim Acta 2021; 523: 266-71.
19. Sciacovelli L, Aita A, Plebani M. Extra-analytical quality indicators and laboratory performance. Clin Biochem 2017; 50: 632-37.
20. Green SF. The cost of poor blood specimen quality and errors in preanalytical processes. Clin Biochem 2013; 46: 1175-79.
21. Lippi G, Plebani M. Continuous quality improvement in laboratory medicine: a patient-centered perspective. Clin Chem Lab Med 2021; 59: 241-43.
22. World Health Organization. Patient safety: global action on patient safety. Geneva: WHO; 2021.