Towards a new paradigm in laboratory medicine: the five rights

Abstract A body of evidence collected in the last few decades demonstrates that the pre- and post-analytical phases of the testing cycle are more error-prone than the analytical phase. However, the paradigm of errors and quality in laboratory medicine has been questioned, analytical mistakes continuing to be a major cause of adverse clinical outcomes and patient harm. Although the brain-to-brain concept is widely recognized in the community of laboratory professionals, there is lack of clarity concerning the inter-relationship between the different phases of the cycle, interdependence between the pre-analytical phase and analytical quality, and the effect of the post-analytical steps on the quality of ultimate laboratory information. Analytical quality remains the “core business” of clinical laboratories, but laboratory professionals and clinicians alike should never lose sight of the fact that pre-analytical variables are often responsible for erroneous test results and that quality biospecimens are pre-requisites for a reliable analytical phase. In addition, the pressure for expert advice on test selection and interpretation of results has increased hand in hand with the ever-increasing complexity of tests and diagnostic fields. Finally, the data on diagnostic errors and inappropriate clinical decisions made due to delay or misinterpretation of laboratory data underscore the current need for greater collaboration at the clinical-laboratory interface.