ArticleJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2024
Quality Control Circle Practices to Reduce Specimen Rejection Rates.
Article in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sample Rejection Rate, Reasons for Rejection and Associated Factors Among Clinical Specimens Requested for Diagnostic Testing at Debre Tabor Comprehensive Specialized Hospital, South Gondar Zone, North West Ethiopia, 2025: A Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Types and frequency of preanalytical errors occurring in the hematology laboratory at Debre Tabor comprehensive specialized hospital, North Central, Ethiopia, 2025.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence-assisted quality control circles led by clinical pharmacists to improve the rational use of parenteral proton pump inhibitors among hospitalised patients.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Quality assurance in laboratory testing significantly impacts patient care. The pre-analytical phase is particularly error-prone, contributing to around 70% of laboratory errors. High specimen rejection rates can delay diagnosis and treatment, cause patient discomfort, and increase healthcare costs. Quality Control Circles (QCC) have been introduced to medical institutions to improve process efficiency and reduce errors. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of QCC practices in reducing specimen rejection rates in a hospital clinical laboratory. Methods: A QCC initiative was implemented in the clinical laboratory from July 2021 to August 2022. The QCC comprised members from the clinical laboratory, nursing department, and administration. The initiative followed the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act) cycle and involved multiple quality control methods, including flowchart analysis, Pareto analysis, and Fishbone diagrams. The effectiveness of the initiative was evaluated using statistical analyses of specimen rejection rates before and after implementation. Results: The QCC initiative led to a significant reduction in specimen rejection rates. The monthly specimen rejection rate decreased from an average of 1.13% before the intervention to 0.27% after the intervention. The most significant factors contributing to specimen rejection were identified as lack of sample collection information and blood clotting. Targeted interventions, such as appointing specimen collection liaisons, establishing a quality control team, and providing training on blood collection procedures, were implemented. These measures resulted in a notable decrease in the proportion of rejected specimens due to the identified factors. Conclusion: The implementation of QCC practices effectively reduced specimen rejection rates in the hospital laboratory. The study highlights the importance of systematic quality control methods and targeted interventions in improving laboratory processes. The success of the QCC initiative demonstrates its potential for broader application in other healthcare settings to enhance quality and efficiency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.