临床检验体液标本送检不合格原因分析

Analysis of the causes of unqualified clinical examination of body fluid specimens

ES评分 0

DOI 10.12208/j.ijcr.20210024
刊名
International Journal of Clinical Research
年,卷(期) 2021, 5(3)
作者
作者单位

云南省老年病医院检验科 云南昆明 ;

摘要
探讨临床检验体液标本送检不合格原因。方法 选取2020年1月至2020年12月我院收集的不合格体液送检样本60例,作为本次研究对象。对所有不合格体液标本的样品类型进行分类,并深入分析每种体液送检样本的不合格原因。结果 经过数据分析可以发现,在60例不合格体液标本中,粪便标本的占比最大,为(46.67%)。然后依次为尿液标本、痰液标本和阴道分泌物标本,所占比例分别为(26.67%)、(23.33%)和(3.33%)。标本数量过少、标本受到污染、存放容器错误、受到药物影响和送检时间过长,是导致体液送检样本不合格的主要原因。结论 以临床检验体液标本送检不合格原因为依据,制定并实施针对性的解决措施,有助于提高体液标本的送检合格率,为患者后续的临床诊治工作提供良好的帮助。为患者的早日出院,起到有利的促进作用。
Abstract
Objective To explore the reasons for the unqualified clinical examination of body fluid specimens. Methods: A total of 60 unqualified body fluid samples collected in our hospital from January 2020 to December 2020 were selected as the object of this study. Classify the sample types of all unqualified body fluid samples, and analyze in-depth the reasons for the unqualified samples of each body fluid. Results: After data analysis, it can be found that among the 60 unqualified body fluid samples, stool samples accounted for the largest proportion (46.67%). Then followed by urine specimens, sputum specimens and vaginal secretions specimens, the proportions were (26.67%), (23.33%) and (3.33%) respectively. Too few specimens, contaminated specimens, wrong storage containers, influence of drugs, and long delivery time are the main reasons for the unqualified samples of body fluids. Conclusion: Based on the reasons for the unqualified clinical examination of body fluid specimens, the development and implementation of targeted solutions will help improve the rate of qualified body fluid specimens and provide good help for the follow-up clinical diagnosis and treatment of patients. It plays a beneficial role in promoting the patients early discharge.
关键词
临床检验;体液标本;不合格原因
KeyWord
Clinical Examination; Body Fluid Specimens; Reasons For Disqualification
基金项目
页码 19-21
  • 参考文献
  • 相关文献
  • 引用本文

刘玲会*,张俊. 临床检验体液标本送检不合格原因分析 [J]. 国际临床研究杂志. 2021; 5; (3). 19 - 21.

  • 文献评论

相关学者

相关机构