Shubham Rastogi b,**, Sukesh Chandran Nair, Dr a,*, Pandiyan Murugan a, Asady Sukanya Sukumar a, Joy J. Mammen a, Saravanan Mullai a
a Department of Transfusion Medicine & Immunohematology, Christian Medical College, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India
b HORIBA Medical, HORIBA ABX SAS, Parc Eurom´edecine - Rue du Caducee, France
* Corresponding author. FRCPA Department of Transfusion Medicine & Immunohematology Christian Medical College, IDA Scudder Rd, Vellore, Tamil Nadu, India.
** Corresponding author.
In clinical laboratories with a heavy patient load, the testing quality of the automated hematology analyzers depends on their accuracy, reliability, and performance as well as efficiency. Continuous evaluation of the equipment with the appropriate methods is the key to ensure sustained quality of reporting in clinical laboratories with a heavy patient load. However, the approaches used for maintaining quality control (QC) include equipment calibration every 6 months, the daily measurement of QC standards, and the inter-instrument comparison within the 6-month interval using patient samples (>40 samples).
Although the performance of the automated hematology analyzers expressed as turn-around time is one of the important criteria in high-volume testing labs to deliver patient quality results on time, it may not be comparable for the analyzers from different companies. Therefore, these analyzers should be compared and evaluated in real-time, using overall equipment effectiveness (OEE) method. The metrics behind OEE utilizes three factors such as availability, performance and quality to measure the percentage of the truly productive time.
Only few studies have compared different hematology analyzers in parallel. None of them has compared the OEE for different hematology analyzers as the definition of OEE does not include all variables that decrease the capacity utilization of clinical laboratory equipment. Arguments are made that sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency should usually be applied in the context of comparing the clinical equipment used for the patient’s specimen. Therefore, technology that reduced interference or flagging rates by increasing specificity and sensitivity of equipments have the potential to significantly improve workload and turn-around times without endangering patients by reporting false or misleading results. Thus, the objective of the present study is to evaluate and compare the OEE, sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency for four contemporary high-end hematology analyzers in the setting of a large tertiary care hospital from Southern India.
Sie haben Fragen oder Wünsche? Nutzen Sie dieses Formular, um mit unseren Spezialisten in Kontakt zu treten.