ArticleEJIFCC2026
Targeting Sample Reception Errors: A Failure Reporting Analysis and Corrective Action System (FRACAS)-Based Laboratory Quality Improvement Study.
Article in EJIFCC, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Approximately 70% of clinical decisions depend on laboratory test results, underscoring the critical importance of examination accuracy. Among the phases of the total testing process, the pre-examination phase accounts for the highest proportion of errors; therefore, interventions aimed at reducing these errors can significantly enhance overall laboratory quality. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of risk assessment and corrective strategies through the implementation of the Failure Reporting, Analysis, and Corrective Action System (FRACAS) by comparing Risk Priority Number (RPN) scores before and after implementing corrective strategies. Methodology: This retrospective observational quality-improvement study obtained approval from the institutional ethics committee. It analyzed two years of data from a clinical biochemistry laboratory. A total of 573 samples were rejected in a NABL-accredited, ISO 15189-compliant tertiary-care hospital in South India. Each nonconformance (NC) was categorized, and its frequency, percentage distribution, and RPN were calculated for both study periods. The effectiveness of risk assessment and corrective strategies was evaluated by comparing pre- and post-corrective RPN values and percentage reductions in NCs. Results: Data from 573 rejected samples (216 pre-corrective in 2021; 357 post-correctives in 2022) were analysed. Mean RPN decreased from 18.0 ± 16.1 to 10.9 ± 15.3 (mean difference 6.0, 95% CI 2.0-24.0, p = 0.041); paired Bayesian t-test showed BF10 = 1.15, evidence for effectiveness. Four NCs were eliminated; however, three new NCs emerged post-STAT lab launch. Conclusion: FRACAS-guided interventions reduce pre-examination NCs and lower RPNs for high-risk processes, supporting their use for pre-examination quality improvement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42699007PMC13543411What 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.