Abstract
Background
This study aimed to understand the status quo of delta checks in Chinese clinical laboratories through a nationwide online survey.
Methods
The survey was divided into two parts. The first part was a general situation survey in which clinical laboratories had to provide information about the laboratories, including delta checks used. In the second part, clinical laboratories were asked to record the delta check alerts generated in their laboratories from June 1st, 2019 to June 30th, 2019.
Results
The most frequently used analytes in delta checks were potassium (K), glucose (Glu), creatinine (Cre) for clinical chemistry and hemoglobin (Hgb), platelet (PLT) count and white blood cell (WBC) count for clinical hematology. The median maximum time interval between specimens for all analytes was 5 days. The most commonly used delta check calculation modes in Chinese clinical laboratories were percentage change and absolute change. K and Hgb were the analytes most involved in clinical chemistry and clinical hematology delta check alerts. The most common causes of delta check alerts were that the patients had received treatment, which was followed by the change in the patient’s physiological state and interference from hemolysis, lipemia and icterus. The two most common outcomes of delta check alerts were ‘no problems found, standard report issued’ and ‘no problems found, report issued with comment’.
Conclusions
This study was the first nationwide survey of delta checks in China, the results of which help us to understand the current situation of delta checks in Chinese clinical laboratories.
Acknowledgments
We would like to extend our gratitude to the clinical laboratories in China that have taken part in our study and provided the relevant data that we needed. We are also deeply indebted to all the technical staff of the Clinet website (www.clinet.com.cn) for the technical support they provided.
Author contributions: All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: 1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (Funder Id: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/ 501100001809, Grant No. 81871737). 2. Zhejiang Provincial Project for Medical and Health Science and Technology (Grant No. 2018KY009).
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Straseski JA, Strathmann FG. Patient data algorithms. Clin Lab Med 2013;33:147–60.10.1016/j.cll.2012.11.009Search in Google Scholar PubMed
2. Randell EW, Yenice S. Delta checks in the clinical laboratory. Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2019;56:75–97.10.1080/10408363.2018.1540536Search in Google Scholar PubMed
3. CLSI EP33. Use of delta checks in the medical laboratory. Wayne, PA, USA: Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute, 2016. Search in Google Scholar
4. Lenicek Krleza J, Honovic L, Vlasic Tanaskovic J, Podolar S, Rimac V, Jokic A. Post-analytical laboratory work: national recommendations from the Working Group for Post-analytics on behalf of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Biochem Med (Zagreb) 2019;29:020502.10.11613/BM.2019.020502Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
5. Lacher DA, Connelly DP. Rate and delta checks compared for selected chemistry tests. Clin Chem 1988;34:1966–70.10.1093/clinchem/34.10.1966Search in Google Scholar
6. Kim JW, Kim JQ, Kim SI. Differential application of rate and delta check on selected clinical chemistry tests. J Korean Med Sci 1990;5:189–95.10.3346/jkms.1990.5.4.189Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
7. Iizuka Y, Kume H, Kitamura M. Multivariate delta check method for detecting specimen mix-up. Clin Chem 1982;28:2244–8.10.1093/clinchem/28.11.2244Search in Google Scholar
8. Rosenbaum MW, Baron JM. Using machine learning-based multianalyte delta checks to detect wrong blood in tube errors. Am J Clin Pathol 2018;150:555–66.10.1093/ajcp/aqy085Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Nosanchuk JS, Gottmann AW. CUMS and delta checks. A systematic approach to quality control. Am J Clin Pathol 1974;62:707–12.10.1093/ajcp/62.5.707Search in Google Scholar PubMed
10. Schifman RB, Talbert M, Souers RJ. Delta check practices and outcomes: a q-probes study involving 49 health care facilities and 6541 delta check alerts. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2017;141:813–23.10.5858/arpa.2016-0161-CPSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Strathmann FG, Baird GS, Hoffman NG. Simulations of delta check rule performance to detect specimen mislabeling using historical laboratory data. Clin Chim Acta 2011;412:1973–7.10.1016/j.cca.2011.07.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Garner AE, Lewington AJ, Barth JH. Detection of patients with acute kidney injury by the clinical laboratory using rises in serum creatinine: comparison of proposed definitions and a laboratory delta check. Ann Clin Biochem 2012;49(Pt 1):59–62.10.1258/acb.2011.011125Search in Google Scholar PubMed
13. Lippi G, Cadamuro J, Danese E, Gelati M, Montagnana M, von Meyer A, et al. Internal quality assurance of HIL indices on Roche Cobas c702. PLoS One 2018;13:e0200088.10.1371/journal.pone.0200088Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
14. Jones JB. A strategic informatics approach to autoverification. Clin Lab Med 2013;33:161–81.10.1016/j.cll.2012.11.004Search in Google Scholar PubMed
15. Krasowski MD, Davis SR, Drees D, Morris C, Kulhavy J, Crone C, et al. Autoverification in a core clinical chemistry laboratory at an academic medical center. J Pathol Inform 2014;5:13.10.4103/2153-3539.129450Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
16. Park SH, Kim SY, Lee W, Chun S, Min WK. New decision criteria for selecting delta check methods based on the ratio of the delta difference to the width of the reference range can be generally applicable for each clinical chemistry test item. Ann Lab Med 2012;32:345–54.10.3343/alm.2012.32.5.345Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
17. Lee J, Kim SY, Kwon HJ, Lee HK, Kim Y, Kim Y. Usefulness of biological variation in the establishment of delta check limits. Clin Chim Acta 2016;463:18–21.10.1016/j.cca.2016.08.007Search in Google Scholar PubMed
18. Ko DH, Park HI, Hyun J, Kim HS, Park MJ, Shin DH. Utility of reference change values for delta check limits. Am J Clin Pathol 2017;148:323–9.10.1093/ajcp/aqx083Search in Google Scholar PubMed
19. Harris EK, Yasaka T. On the calculation of a “reference change” for comparing two consecutive measurements. Clin Chem 1983;29:25–30.10.1093/clinchem/29.1.25Search in Google Scholar
20. Gruenberg JM, Stein TA, Karger AB. Determining the utility of creatinine delta checks: a large retrospective analysis. Clin Biochem 2018;53:139–42.10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2018.01.023Search in Google Scholar PubMed
21. Ovens K, Naugler C. How useful are delta checks in the 21 century? A stochastic-dynamic model of specimen mix-up and detection. J Pathol Inform 2012;3:5.10.4103/2153-3539.93402Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
22. Karger AB. To delta check or not to delta check? That is the question. J Appl Lab Med 2017;1:457–9.10.1373/jalm.2016.022020Search in Google Scholar PubMed
23. Rimac V, Lapic I, Kules K, Rogic D, Miler M. Implementation of the autovalidation algorithm for clinical chemistry testing in the laboratory information system. Lab Med 2018;49: 284–91.10.1093/labmed/lmx089Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
