Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 6, 2026
An In Vitro Hemodynamic Loop Model to Investigate the Hemocytocompatibility and Host Cell Activation of Vascular Medical Devices
Published on: August 21, 2020
Practices for Identifying and Rejecting Hemolyzed Specimens Are Highly Variable in Clinical Laboratories.
Peter J Howanitz, Christopher M Lehman, Bruce A Jones
1From the Department of Pathology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York (Dr Howanitz); the Department of Pathology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City (Dr Lehman); the Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan (Drs Jones and Meier); and the Department of Pathology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts (Dr Horowitz).
Clinical laboratory practices for identifying and rejecting hemolyzed specimens vary significantly. Standardizing hemolysis assessment and reporting is crucial for improving result reliability across laboratories.
Area of Science:
- Clinical Laboratory Science
- Medical Diagnostics
- Quality Assurance in Healthcare
Background:
- Hemolysis is a critical factor affecting the reliability of clinical laboratory results.
- Understanding current practices is essential for improving laboratory quality.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate the current practices for identifying and rejecting hemolyzed specimens in clinical laboratories.
- To identify variations in hemolysis assessment and rejection protocols.
Main Methods:
- A questionnaire was distributed to Chemistry Survey participants via the College of American Pathologists Survey program.
- The survey focused on hemolysis identification and rejection practices, including methods, scales, and rejection criteria.
Main Results:
- Response rate was 24% (846 of 3495 participants).
- Hemolysis rates varied, with 71% of labs reporting <3.0% and 5% reporting >=6.0%.
- Practices for identification (visual, instrument, combined) and rejection criteria differed widely, with 88% of labs rejecting specimens based on hemolysis levels.
Conclusions:
- Significant variability exists in clinical laboratory hemolysis identification and rejection practices.
- Standardized assessment and consistent reporting are recommended to reduce interlaboratory variability and enhance result accuracy.
