Clinical Chemistry Email Content Delivery
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 43: 360-362, 1997;
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Estey, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Felder, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Estey, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Felder, R. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques
(Clinical Chemistry. 1997;43:360-362.)
© 1997 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Articles

Clinical evaluation of serial blood processing at point of care

Christopher A. Esteya and Robin A. Felder

The University of Virginia Health Sciences Center, Medical Automation Research Center, Box 168, Charlottesville, VA 22908.
a Author for correspondence. Fax 804-924-5718; e-mail cae4q{at}virginia.edu


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The Axial Separation Module (ASMTM), which separates whole-blood specimens serially in Axial Process Containers (APCTM), was evaluated for clinical performance at the University of Virginia Health Sciences Center (UVA HSC) in a community-based outpatient laboratory (North Ridge Clinic). We hypothesized that moving the task of blood separation to point of care would reduce specimen turnaround time within the main laboratory. Blood drawn into an APC was separated in the ASM at point of care at the North Ridge Clinic. Blood drawn into a Vacutainer TubeTMwas separated in a conventional centrifuge at the main laboratory. Turnaround time was calculated for the "chem 17" test from files stored in our laboratory information system. Blood serially separated at point of care yielded turnaround time savings for specimens originating from the North Ridge Clinic. Average turnaround time decreased by 24%. Phlebotomists found no appreciable workload increase from incorporating the ASM as a point-of-care blood separation device. Phlebotomists also found that they could immediately detect hemolysis. We concluded that serial separation at point of care reduces specimen turnaround time at the main laboratory. The ASM/APC was found to be better suited for point-of-care blood separation than a conventional centrifuge. We speculate that immediate blood separation has the potential to improve the quality of analytical results.


Key Words: indexing terms: automation • centrifugation • hemolysis • turnaround time • axial separation


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 
The Axial Separation Module (ASMTM), which separates whole blood in Axial Process Containers (APCTM) (Dupont Canada, Mississauga, ON) (1)(2), was evaluated for clinical performance at the University of Virginia Health Sciences Center (UVA HSC) in a community-based outpatient laboratory.1 We utilized the ASM to serially process blood specimens at point of care. We wanted to determine the effects of point-of-care blood separation on turnaround time.

Our previous evaluation (2) had three significant findings: (a) axial separation of heparin-containing whole blood gave equivalent chemistry values when compared with conventional specimen separation; (b) axial separation yielded a 69% time savings at the centrifugation bench (time on the centrifugation bench is a small portion of turnaround time); (c) the ASM, because of the increased speed and efficiency of axial separation, was calculated to allow a labor savings of up to one-half a full-time laboratory employee. The ASM separates one tube of whole blood in ~1 min with minimum operator effort.

In the previous study we did not measure test result turnaround time (previously, only time spent on the centrifuge bench top was considered). We studied turnaround time at UVA HSC main clinical laboratory for specimens separated at point of care. We chose to study specimens originating from a typical outpatient center because we anticipate that the UVA HSC will serve up to 18 remote facilities in the next year. The ease of use and compact design of the ASM was well-suited for use at our North Ridge outpatient clinic (located 5 miles away from the main hospital laboratory).

Conventionally, specimens arrive at the main laboratory accessioning area and are subjected to preanalytical delays caused by bottlenecks at the centrifugation station. We hypothesized that moving blood separation to point of care would reduce turnaround time because separated specimens could bypass the centrifugation step of the preanalytical process in the main laboratory.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results
 Discussion
 References
 
All blood was drawn by trained phlebotomists. The APC has been approved by the FDA and it gives equivalent chemistries when compared with the Vacutainer TubeTM (Becton Dickinson, Franklin Lakes, NJ) (2). All specimens in this study were used for patient care.

Blood drawn into an APC was separated in the ASM at the North Ridge Clinic. Blood drawn into a Vacutainer Tube was separated in a conventional centrifuge (AccuspinTM; Beckman Instruments, Palo Alto, CA) at the main laboratory. Therefore, blood in an APC arrived to the main laboratory separated, whereas a Vacutainer Tube arrived containing whole blood. Turnaround time was calculated for the "chem 17" test from files stored in our laboratory information system (LIS) (Sunquest, Tucson, AZ).

Specimen transportation to the main laboratory from the North Ridge Clinic was performed by human messengers. Average turnaround time was calculated for both the conventional system and the ASM/APC at the North Ridge Clinic. The time period of interest (turnaround time, Fig. 1 ) for this study started with specimen arrival at the accessioning area of the main laboratory and ended with result availability to the LIS.



View larger version (15K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Figure 1. Illustration of turnaround time comparison for blood specimens originating from the North Ridge Outpatient Clinic.

Blood separation occurred after specimen receipt at the main laboratory for the conventional system. Blood separation was done at the site of phlebotomy (at point of care) for the ASM/APC system. Note that time spent waiting for a messenger combined with actual delivery time to the main laboratory was estimated to be ~1 h and is not affected by either centrifugation method. Blood separation performed at point of care yielded 24% faster turnaround times in the main laboratory.

A time comparison between blood specimens serially separated at point of care vs conventional batch centrifugation at the main laboratory was performed. We adopted sequential time periods of 3 weeks. The ASM was placed in the laboratory 1 week before the test period to allow technologists to become accustomed to the new technology. All data points were collected from the 3-week periods to obviate any bias from data selection. The two systems could not be operated in parallel because sorting out ASM tubes from conventional tubes after transportation would have biased the timing studies.

The turnaround times were compared by the Student's t-test, and P <0.01 was taken to be significant.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
Discussion
 References
 
North Ridge Clinic: The average turnaround time for the conventional system was 1 h 45 min ± 4.4 min (mean ± SE, n = 49) compared with 1 h 20 min ± 6.3 min (mean ± SE, n = 34) for the ASM, an average of 24% time savings (P <0.01, unpaired t-test) (Fig. 1Up ). None of the turnaround times for the conventional system was <1 h, whereas 41% of the turnaround times for blood specimens separated at point of care were <1 h.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
References
 
The faster turnaround times for the APCs were primarily a result of the elimination of the batch centrifugation step in the main laboratory, historically a major bottleneck in the preanalytical process. Conventional specimen separation includes specimen queuing before and after centrifugation, centrifuge balancing, loading, and unloading. Our conventional centrifuges at the main laboratory run for 10 min. For the North Ridge Clinic specimens, an average of 25 min per specimen was saved by incorporating point-of-care centrifugation. Point-of-care blood separation saved not only the 10 min of centrifugation time in the main laboratory, but additional time necessary for accessioning, sorting, and conventional centrifuge tasks such as balancing, loading, and unloading. Any remote laboratory that provides phlebotomy services (but has specimen centrifugation and analysis performed elsewhere) could benefit from the faster turnaround times provided by point-of-care separation. Once the APCs are mass produced, it is assumed they would be cost justifiable (understanding that they would still be at a premium compared with conventional tubes because of the advantages they offer). When the technology becomes commercially available (projected for the third quarter of 1997), we plan to incorporate it in as many of our 18 remote sites as possible.

The technologists indicated that processing specimens serially in the ASM did not require appreciable effort or delay their daily routine, unlike conventional centrifugation. In fact, in the past the North Ridge Clinic centrifuged their own specimens (conventionally), but that responsibility was eliminated when it was found to be too laborious. Previously, the technologists often batched specimens when separating by conventional centrifugation. Those batches that were in the process of centrifugation when the messenger arrived had to wait until the next delivery time (at least 1 h later).

We observed that our present laboratory protocol (in the main laboratory, after delivery) requires medical technologists to transport routine specimens from the accessioning/centrifugation area to the analytical area approximately every 30 min. APCs and Vacutainer Tubes arrive at the accessioning/centrifugation area in the same manner. Although blood in an APC was already separated, it remained in the accessioning area queue until delivery to the analyzer. So, at our main laboratory, turnaround time could be further reduced up to 30 min if the APCs could be streamlined directly to the analyzers after accessioning is complete. The process then is analyzer time dependent and nonanalytical time is minimized.

Hemolysis causes analytical problems (3) and is a common problem with patient specimens originating from another remote facility at the UVA HSC, our Cancer Treatment Center. Hemolysis requires a redraw of a patient specimen. With conventional centrifugation, hemolysis is not discovered until preanalytical specimen processing is complete at the main laboratory. A lengthy time delay results before a patient can receive medication. Thus, the ability to immediately detect hemolysis (and possibly other problems such as lipemia and icterus) at the time of phlebotomy is desirable. This can be accomplished with point-of-care centrifugation.

The ASM processes blood specimens serially. Its design is well suited for point of care. Conventional centrifuges are much more labor intensive (2). The APC technology allows for quick visual inspection of the plasma at point of care within minutes of phlebotomy completion. The need for a redraw is determined immediately. This can potentially save a patient hours of time. For example, a Cancer Treatment Center patient cannot receive chemotherapy until the analytical results are obtained. A new study being conducted at the UVA HSC Cancer Center clinic will seek to quantify the effect of point-of-care blood separation on patient care.

Point-of-care blood separation has another potential benefit: Specimens originating from remote locations are subject to analytical problems associated with delays of specimen separation (3)(4). Therefore, blood specimens should be centrifuged as soon as possible. Electrolyte concentrations decrease over time in whole blood because of the concentration gradients that exist between cells and serum (or plasma) (4). Glucose is metabolized by leukocytes and erythrocytes in whole blood (3). The use of antiglycolytic agents is commonplace for glucose measurements. However, immediate blood separation may help eliminate analytical error due to whole-blood separation delays and may obviate the need for metabolic inhibitors. Furthermore, plasma is permanently separated from cells by a plastic separator in the APCs. We believe this to be superior to traditional gel tubes, especially during transportation in hot weather.

In conclusion, prior studies demonstrated that the serial nature of the ASM system more efficiently separates whole-blood specimens on the bench top. Our clinical evidence now demonstrates that serial point-of-care blood separation reduces specimen turnaround time at the main laboratory. The ASM/APC was found to be better suited for point-of-care blood separation than a conventional centrifuge. Furthermore, we speculate that this technology has the potential to help improve the quality of analytical results by facilitating centrifugation immediately after phlebotomy at point of care. A study to assess the effect point-of-care centrifugation has on patient care is ongoing.


   Acknowledgments
 
This study was supported by a grant from Dupont Canada. We thank James C. Boyd for his statistical expertise. We also thank the laboratory staff at both the North Ridge Clinic and the Cancer Treatment Center for their invaluable assistance with these studies.


   Footnotes
 
1 Nonstandard abbreviations: ASM, Axial Separation Module; APC, Axial Process Containers; UVA HSC, University of Virginia Health Sciences Center; and LIS, laboratory information system.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 References
 

  1. McEwen JA, Godolphin W, Bohl RM, Dance MN, Furse ML, Osborne JC. Apparatus and method for separating the phases of blood. US Patent 4 929 716 1989;.
  2. Estey CA, Felder RA. Clinical trials of a novel centrifugation method: axial separation. Clin Chem 1996;42:402-409. [Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Ladenson JH. Nonanalytical sources of variation in clinical chemistry results. In: Sonnenwirth AC, Jarrett L. Gradwohl's clinical laboratory methods and diagnosis. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby Co., 1980:149–92..
  4. Heins M, Heil H, Withold W. Storage of serum or whole blood samples?. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem 1995;33:231-238. [ISI][Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]



The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
J. W. Holman, T. E. Mifflin, R. A. Felder, and L. M. Demers
Evaluation of an Automated Preanalytical Robotic Workstation at Two Academic Health Centers
Clin. Chem., March 1, 2002; 48(3): 540 - 548.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
S. Graves, B. Holman, and R. A. Felder
Modular Robotic Workcell for Coagulation Analysis
Clin. Chem., May 1, 2000; 46(5): 772 - 777.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Estey, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Felder, R. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Estey, C. A.
Right arrow Articles by Felder, R. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Laboratory Management
Right arrow Automation and Analytical Techniques

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS