ASF Standards · Laboratory · Standard 6

Standard 6 — Pre-Examination: Specimen Pathway

8 criteria · 4 non-negotiable · 3 core · 1 standard-level · Version 1.0

Criteria in this standard

6.1 — Two-Identifier Patient Verification
6.2 — Specimen Labeled at the Point of Collection
6.3 — Rejection Criteria, Applied Consistently
6.4 — Transport Conditions Preserve Specimen Integrity
6.5 — Chain of Custody for Forensic or Legal Specimens
6.6 — Specimen Accessioning Logged in Real Time
6.7 — Urgent/STAT Specimens Prioritized and Tracked
6.8 — Specimen Retention Before Discard

6.1

Two-Identifier Patient Verification

Non-Negotiable

Before specimen collection, the patient’s identity is verified using at least two independent identifiers — never room number or visual recognition alone — and the verification is actively performed, not merely asked as a rhetorical formality.

In plain terms: The collector genuinely confirms who the patient is, using two real identifiers, every single time — not a quick glance or a question nobody actually waits to hear answered properly.

Facility category	Standalone lab	Hospital lab	Clinic lab
Applicability	Full	Full	Full

Why this matters

Patient misidentification at collection is one of the most consequential, entirely preventable errors a laboratory can make — a specimen correctly processed but drawn from the wrong patient produces a result that is perfectly accurate for someone else’s blood and dangerously wrong for the patient it’s reported against. The failure is rarely dramatic; it is usually a rushed, routine moment where a name is spoken as a statement rather than genuinely confirmed.

What good looks like

Two genuine identifiers are actively checked, every time.
Room or bed number is never used as one of the identifiers.
A real, documented alternative exists for patients who cannot verbally confirm identity.

Common failure modes

A name is stated and the patient’s silence or nod is treated as confirmation.
Room number is used as a de facto second identifier.
No defined process exists for unconscious or language-barrier patients.

Worked example

In practice

A busy outpatient phlebotomy station during a morning rush.

BeforeA phlebotomist called out “Maria Chikviladze?” to the waiting room, a patient stood up, and collection proceeded without any further confirmation — the call-out itself was treated as sufficient identification.

ActionThe laboratory retrained all collection staff on active two-identifier verification — asking the patient to state their own full name and date of birth, rather than confirming a name spoken by staff — and built this specifically into the collection SOP with a required verbal script.

AfterThe Monitor observed three live collections and confirmed each phlebotomist asked the patient to state their own name and date of birth rather than confirming a name spoken aloud by staff. Criterion verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

Observe actual collections today — is verification active or passive?
Build a required verbal script asking patients to state their own identifiers.
Define a specific alternative process for patients who cannot verbally respond.

The most common mistake: Calling out a patient’s name and treating their response to being called as identity confirmation, rather than actively asking the patient to state their own identifiers.

Self-assessment questions

1. Observe a live collection — are two genuine identifiers actually checked, not just a name spoken while the patient is expected to confirm passively? — “You’re Mrs. Johnson, right?” to a half-asleep patient is not active verification.
Evidence: Direct observation during survey

2. Is room number or bed number ever used as one of the two identifiers? — Room numbers change; using one as an identifier is a specific, recurring failure mode.
Evidence: Collection SOP, direct observation

3. For a patient unable to confirm identity verbally, is there a documented alternative verification procedure? — Unconscious, pediatric, or language-barrier patients need a real, written alternative, not an exception that defaults to no verification.
Evidence: Written alternative identification procedure

4. Is the patient’s right to decline specimen collection genuinely honoured, with staff able to describe what happens when a patient exercises it? — A real right, not an assumption that arriving for the test obligates the patient to complete it.
Evidence: Staff interview

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

Verification happens but is passive — confirming a stated name rather than asking the patient to state it.
No written alternative exists for patients who can’t verbally respond.

Implementation plan

When	What
Week 1	Observe current collection practice for active versus passive verification.
Week 2	Build a required verbal script and retrain collection staff.
Week 3	Write the alternative procedure for non-verbal patients.
Ongoing	Spot-check live collections periodically.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method	What	Detail
OBSERVE	Live collection observation	Directly observes collections to confirm active, two-identifier verification is genuinely performed.

Evidence base

World Health Organization. Patient Identification. Patient Safety Solutions, Volume 1, Solution 2. Geneva: WHO; 2007.

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15189:2022, Medical laboratories — Requirements for quality and competence, Clause 7.2.6. Geneva: ISO; 2022.

6.2

Specimen Labeled at the Point of Collection

Non-Negotiable

Every specimen is labeled in the presence of the patient, immediately following collection, before moving to the next patient or task — never batch-labeled afterward from memory or a separate list.

In plain terms: The label goes on the tube right there, with the patient still present — never later, from memory, after moving on to someone else.

Facility category	Standalone lab	Hospital lab	Clinic lab
Applicability	Full	Full	Full

Why this matters

Delayed or batch labeling is one of the most well-documented, preventable causes of specimen mix-up in laboratory medicine. Even a short delay across two or three patients collected in quick succession creates a real window for confusion — tubes look alike, memory is fallible under time pressure, and the consequence of a mix-up is a result reported under the wrong patient’s name.

What good looks like

Labeling is observed happening at bedside or chairside, before moving on.
No workflow exists where multiple specimens are collected before any labeling.
Labels carry enough information for independent re-verification.

Common failure modes

Pre-printed labels are applied later, away from the patient.
Several specimens are collected in sequence before any are labeled.
Labels carry only a name, with no date/time or second identifier.

Worked example

In practice

A home-visit phlebotomy service collecting from several patients in one morning route.

BeforeThe phlebotomist collected specimens from three patients in a row during a home visit route, planning to label all three once back in the vehicle using a pre-written list — a workflow that had developed informally for efficiency.

ActionThe laboratory introduced a hard rule, specifically addressing the home-visit workflow: no specimen moves to the next patient’s door until the current specimen is fully labeled, in the current patient’s presence.

AfterThe Monitor accompanied a home-visit collection route and confirmed each specimen was labeled before the phlebotomist left each patient’s home. Criterion verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

Check whether any current workflow allows multiple collections before labeling.
Build an explicit rule: label before moving on, no exceptions, including off-site collection.
Check label content includes enough information for independent verification.

The most common mistake: Off-site or multi-patient collection routes developing an informal batch-labeling workflow for efficiency, specifically because the point-of-collection labeling rule wasn’t explicitly extended to those situations.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is labeling observed to happen at bedside/chairside, before the collector moves on? — Pre-printed labels applied later, away from the patient, is a well-documented cause of mix-ups.
Evidence: Direct observation

2. Are there any workflows where multiple specimens are collected before any labeling occurs? — Even a short delay across several patients creates real mix-up risk.
Evidence: Workflow review, including off-site collection

3. Does the label include enough information to re-verify identity independently of the collector’s memory? — At minimum, two identifiers plus date/time of collection.
Evidence: Label content review

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

In-facility labeling is correct, but off-site or home-visit collection has a separate, uncontrolled workflow.
Labels carry a name but lack a second identifier or timestamp.

Implementation plan

When	What
Week 1	Review all collection workflows, including off-site, for labeling timing.
Week 2	Build an explicit point-of-collection labeling rule covering every workflow.
Week 3	Retrain all collection staff, including off-site teams.
Ongoing	Spot-check labeling practice periodically, including off-site visits.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method	What	Detail
OBSERVE	Live collection observation	Observes the actual timing of specimen labeling relative to collection and patient departure.

Evidence base

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. GP33-A: Accuracy in Patient and Sample Identification. Wayne (PA): CLSI; 2010.

6.3

Rejection Criteria, Applied Consistently

Non-Negotiable

Written specimen rejection criteria — hemolysis, clotting, insufficient volume, unlabeled or mislabeled specimens, wrong container — are applied consistently regardless of how difficult the specimen was to obtain or who is requesting results urgently.

In plain terms: A bad specimen gets rejected every time, by the same rules — even when it was hard to get, and even when someone’s pushing for a fast result.

Facility category	Standalone lab	Hospital lab	Clinic lab
Applicability	Full	Full	Full

Why this matters

Rejection criteria exist precisely because certain specimen conditions make a result unreliable regardless of how urgently it’s needed or how difficult the specimen was to collect. The moment exceptions begin — “just this once, the patient was a hard draw” — the criteria stop functioning as genuine safeguards and become guidelines applied only when convenient, which defeats their purpose entirely.

What good looks like

Staff can describe rejection criteria without needing to look them up.
A documented instance exists of rejection holding despite clinical pressure.
Rejections are logged with reason and communicated to the requesting clinician.

Common failure modes

Criteria exist on paper but staff don’t actually know them.
Difficult-to-obtain specimens are quietly accepted despite not meeting criteria.
Rejected specimens are silently discarded with no clinician notification.

Worked example

In practice

A pediatric blood draw that was genuinely difficult to obtain.

BeforeA hemolyzed specimen from a difficult pediatric draw was processed anyway, because the collecting nurse explained how hard it had been to get and the requesting physician wanted results urgently, with no formal exception process — just an informal decision to proceed.

ActionThe laboratory reinforced with all staff that rejection criteria apply regardless of collection difficulty, with a clear process for the requesting clinician to be notified immediately so a recollection could be arranged without delay, rather than compromising the result.

AfterThe Monitor found a documented instance of a similarly difficult specimen being correctly rejected, with prompt clinician notification and recollection arranged. Criterion verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

Confirm written rejection criteria exist and staff can describe them unprompted.
Check recent records for any instance of criteria being bypassed under pressure.
Build a fast notification process so rejection doesn’t feel like it’s only causing delay.

The most common mistake: Making a quiet, informal exception specifically for specimens that were difficult to obtain, treating the collection effort as a reason to lower the quality bar.

Self-assessment questions

1. Can staff describe the rejection criteria without looking them up? — If criteria exist only on paper and staff don’t actually know them, they aren’t functioning.
Evidence: Staff interview

2. Is there a documented instance of a specimen being rejected despite clinical pressure to proceed anyway? — Evidence the criteria hold even under pressure, not just when convenient.
Evidence: Rejection log

3. Is rejection logged with reason and communicated back to the requesting clinician, not just silently discarded? — Silent rejection can delay care without anyone realizing why results never arrived.
Evidence: Rejection log with clinician notification record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

Criteria are applied inconsistently for difficult-to-obtain specimens.
Rejections happen but aren’t consistently communicated back to clinicians.

Implementation plan

When	What
Week 1	Confirm written rejection criteria are current and complete.
Week 2	Brief all staff and reinforce no-exception application.
Week 3	Build a fast clinician notification process for rejections.
Ongoing	Review rejection log periodically for consistency.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method	What	Detail
ASK	Staff knowledge check	Asks staff to describe rejection criteria without reference material.
DOCUMENT	Rejection log review	Reviews rejection log entries for consistency and clinician notification.

Evidence base

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. GP44-A4: Procedures for the Collection of Diagnostic Blood Specimens by Venipuncture. Wayne (PA): CLSI; 2017.

6.4

Transport Conditions Preserve Specimen Integrity

Non-Negotiable

Specimens requiring specific transport conditions — temperature, time limits, light protection — are transported accordingly, with the conditions actually monitored, not assumed to be met because a general policy exists.

In plain terms: Specimens that need special handling during transport actually get it, verified — not just assumed because a cooler bag was used.

Facility category	Standalone lab	Hospital lab	Clinic lab
Applicability	Full	Full	Full

Why this matters

An insulated transport container is a tool, not a guarantee — without actual verification, a cooler bag left in a hot vehicle for an extended period can still fail to maintain required temperature, and nobody would know unless conditions are genuinely checked rather than assumed from the equipment used. Time-sensitive analytes are particularly vulnerable to this gap, since degradation can occur without any visible sign in the specimen itself.

What good looks like

Transport temperature is actually verified, not assumed from container type.
Time from collection to receipt is tracked for time-sensitive analytes.
Out-of-condition specimens have a documented effect on interpretation or rejection.

Common failure modes

An insulated bag is used with no actual temperature verification.
No timestamp exists at both collection and receipt for time-sensitive tests.
A noted condition breach has no consequence for how the result is used.

Worked example

In practice

A referred specimen requiring cold-chain transport from a satellite clinic.

BeforeSpecimens were transported in a standard insulated cooler bag with no actual temperature verification — the bag itself was assumed sufficient regardless of ambient conditions or transport duration, which varied considerably by season.

ActionThe laboratory introduced a temperature logger inside the transport container, checked on arrival against the required range, with any out-of-range arrival triggering a documented impact assessment before the specimen was processed.

AfterThe Monitor reviewed recent transport logger records and found consistent within-range results, with one documented summer excursion that triggered the correct impact assessment and specimen rejection. Criterion verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

Identify every specimen type with specific transport requirements.
Introduce actual temperature verification, not just an insulated container.
Add collection and receipt timestamps for time-sensitive analytes.

The most common mistake: Treating the use of an insulated transport container as equivalent to verified temperature control, without ever actually checking the temperature achieved.

Self-assessment questions

1. For temperature-sensitive specimens, is the actual transport temperature verified, not just assumed from the container type used? — An insulated bag without verification is an assumption, not a control.
Evidence: Transport temperature log

2. Is time from collection to receipt tracked for time-sensitive analytes? — Without a timestamp at both ends, a transport delay goes undetected.
Evidence: Collection and receipt timestamps

3. Where a specimen arrives outside acceptable transport conditions, is this documented and does it affect result interpretation or trigger rejection? — A condition breach that’s noted but has no consequence for the result is not a real control.
Evidence: Impact assessment record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

A cooler or insulated bag is used but temperature is never actually checked.
Timestamps exist at collection but not at receipt, or vice versa.

Implementation plan

When	What
Week 1	Identify transport-sensitive specimen types and their requirements.
Week 2	Introduce temperature logging in transport containers.
Week 3	Add collection/receipt timestamping where missing.
Ongoing	Review transport condition logs periodically for trends.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method	What	Detail
DOCUMENT	Transport log review	Reviews temperature logging and timestamp records for transported specimens.

Evidence base

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. GP44-A4: Procedures for the Collection of Diagnostic Blood Specimens by Venipuncture. Wayne (PA): CLSI; 2017.

6.5

Chain of Custody for Forensic or Legal Specimens

Core

Where the laboratory processes specimens with forensic, legal, or chain-of-custody requirements, a documented, unbroken custody record accompanies the specimen from collection through final disposition, with every handler’s signature and timestamp.

In plain terms: For legally sensitive specimens, there’s a complete paper trail showing exactly who had the specimen and when, with no gaps, from start to finish.

Facility category	Standalone lab	Hospital lab	Clinic lab
Applicability	Where applicable	Where applicable	Where applicable

Why this matters

A single gap anywhere in a chain-of-custody record — a handoff with no signature, a storage period with no logged access control — can undermine the legal validity of the specimen and its result entirely, regardless of how carefully every other step was handled. This is a case where a process that is otherwise rigorous but incomplete in just one link fails the whole purpose of the requirement.

What good looks like

Every transfer point requires a signature, with no gaps.
Chain-of-custody specimens are physically secured differently from routine ones.
Staff receive training specific to chain-of-custody requirements.

Common failure modes

Some transfer points are signed, others informally skipped.
Specimens sit in the same open rack as routine specimens.
Staff apply routine handling training to chain-of-custody specimens by default.

Worked example

In practice

A laboratory processing an occasional forensic toxicology specimen.

BeforeA chain-of-custody form existed and was generally used, but internal transfers between the receiving desk and the testing bench were handled informally without a signature, since staff considered it “all within the same building.”

ActionThe laboratory required signature at every single handoff point, including internal transfers, and introduced locked, separate storage specifically for chain-of-custody specimens with access logged.

AfterThe Monitor reviewed the most recent chain-of-custody record and found an unbroken signature chain including internal transfers, with no gap anywhere from collection to final disposition. Criterion verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

Map every handoff point a chain-of-custody specimen passes through, including internal ones.
Check for any point currently missing a signature requirement.
Set up separate, secured storage for these specimens.

The most common mistake: Treating internal transfers within the same building as not needing formal chain-of-custody signature, when any gap — internal or external — breaks the chain.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does a chain-of-custody form exist, with every transfer point requiring a signature, not just collection and final testing? — A gap anywhere in the chain undermines the specimen’s legal validity.
Evidence: Chain-of-custody form

2. Are chain-of-custody specimens physically secured differently from routine specimens? — Locked storage or restricted access, not sitting in the same open rack as routine work.
Evidence: Secure storage inspection

3. Is staff specifically trained on chain-of-custody requirements, distinct from routine specimen handling training? — Routine training alone does not cover the additional legal requirements.
Evidence: Chain-of-custody-specific training record

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

External transfers are signed but internal transfers are skipped.
No separate secure storage exists for these specimens.

Implementation plan

When	What
Week 1	Map all handoff points including internal transfers.
Week 2	Close any signature gaps found.
Week 3	Establish separate secure storage and specific staff training.
Ongoing	Audit chain-of-custody records for completeness on every case.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method	What	Detail
DOCUMENT	Chain-of-custody record review	Reviews a recent custody record for an unbroken chain of signatures at every transfer point.

Evidence base

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. GP19-A2: Laboratory Instruments and Data Management Systems. Wayne (PA): CLSI; 2009.

6.6

Specimen Accessioning Logged in Real Time

Core

Specimen receipt is logged in the laboratory information system at the time of actual receipt, creating a verifiable, time-stamped record of when the specimen entered the laboratory’s custody, not backdated to match the collection time.

In plain terms: When a specimen actually arrives, that moment gets logged right then — the timestamp isn’t quietly adjusted to look tidier later.

Facility category	Standalone lab	Hospital lab	Clinic lab
Applicability	Full	Full	Full

Why this matters

An accessioning timestamp that mysteriously always matches the expected collection time, with no natural variation, is a signal of backdating rather than genuine real-time logging — and it distorts every downstream turnaround-time metric built on that timestamp, hiding exactly the delays the laboratory most needs visibility into to improve its own process.

What good looks like

Accessioning timestamp reflects genuine receipt time, with natural variation.
No meaningful backlog of unaccessioned specimens exists.
Any record can be retrieved immediately for a selected specimen.

Common failure modes

Timestamps are manually entered to match the requested collection time.
A backlog of specimens sits unaccessioned during busy periods.
Records require reconstruction rather than immediate retrieval.

Worked example

In practice

A laboratory reviewing its accessioning practice during peak morning volume.

BeforeDuring the morning rush, specimens were physically received and set aside to be logged later once volume slowed, with staff manually entering a receipt time that approximated when they believed the specimen had actually arrived.

ActionThe laboratory introduced barcode scanning at the point of physical receipt, automatically timestamping the moment a specimen entered the building, removing manual entry from the process entirely.

AfterThe Monitor cross-checked accessioning timestamps against an independent courier log for several specimens and found consistent, genuine correlation rather than suspiciously exact matches to collection time. Criterion verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

Check whether current accessioning timestamps show natural variation or suspiciously always match collection time.
Consider automated scanning at the point of physical receipt if currently manual.
Check for any backlog of unaccessioned specimens right now.

The most common mistake: Manually backdating accessioning timestamps during busy periods to make turnaround-time metrics look better than the actual process achieved.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does the accessioning timestamp reflect actual receipt time, verifiable against another independent record such as a courier log? — A timestamp that always exactly matches the requested collection time, with no variation, suggests backdating rather than real-time logging.
Evidence: Timestamp cross-check against courier or transport log

2. Is there a backlog where specimens sit unaccessioned for a meaningful period before entry? — A delay here distorts turnaround-time reporting and can delay result release.
Evidence: Accessioning backlog check

3. Can the laboratory produce the accessioning record for any specimen the Monitor selects, on request? — Immediately retrievable, not reconstructed after the fact.
Evidence: Live record retrieval

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

Manual entry during busy periods introduces inaccurate timestamps.
A regular backlog exists during predictable peak volume times.

Implementation plan

When	What
Week 1	Review current accessioning timestamp accuracy.
Week 2	Consider automated scanning if accuracy is a genuine issue.
Week 3	Address any identified backlog pattern during peak periods.
Ongoing	Periodically cross-check timestamps against an independent record.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method	What	Detail
DOCUMENT	Timestamp cross-check	Compares accessioning timestamps against an independent record for genuine correlation.

Evidence base

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15189:2022, Medical laboratories — Requirements for quality and competence, Clause 7.2.7. Geneva: ISO; 2022.

6.7

Urgent/STAT Specimens Prioritized and Tracked

Core

A written procedure defines how urgent or STAT specimens are flagged, prioritized through processing, and tracked against a defined turnaround-time target, distinct from routine specimen handling.

In plain terms: STAT specimens genuinely jump the queue, in a way that actually changes how fast they get processed — not just a sticker that doesn’t change anything.

Facility category	Standalone lab	Hospital lab	Clinic lab
Applicability	Full	Full	Full

Why this matters

A STAT flag that doesn’t genuinely change a specimen’s position in the processing queue is worse than no flag at all — it creates false confidence among requesting clinicians that urgency is being honored, when in practice nothing operational has changed. Real STAT prioritization requires both a physical or digital mechanism that actually alters processing order and ongoing tracking to confirm it’s working as intended.

What good looks like

A visible flagging system genuinely changes processing priority.
STAT turnaround time is actually tracked against a defined target.
Missed STAT targets are logged and reviewed as quality events.

Common failure modes

A “STAT” label exists but doesn’t change actual queue position.
Turnaround time is tracked for routine specimens but not specifically for STAT.
Missed STAT targets go unreviewed with no follow-up.

Worked example

In practice

A chemistry section receiving a mix of routine and urgent specimens throughout the day.

BeforeSTAT specimens were marked with a colored sticker, but were placed in the same processing queue as routine specimens in the order received, with the sticker serving only as a visual note rather than actually changing processing sequence.

ActionThe laboratory introduced a dedicated STAT processing lane with its own tracking, a defined turnaround target of thirty minutes, and monthly review of actual performance against that target.

AfterThe Monitor reviewed recent STAT turnaround data showing consistent performance against the thirty-minute target, with one documented miss that had triggered a logged review. Criterion verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

Check whether your current STAT flag actually changes processing order in practice.
Set a specific, defined STAT turnaround-time target.
Build a tracking and review mechanism for STAT performance.

The most common mistake: Using a visual flag for urgent specimens that signals urgency to staff but doesn’t actually change the specimen’s position in the processing sequence.

Self-assessment questions

1. Is there a visible, physical or digital flagging system that actually changes how a STAT specimen is handled, not just a label with no operational effect? — A “STAT” sticker that doesn’t change queue position accomplishes nothing.
Evidence: Observed prioritization in practice

2. Is STAT turnaround time actually tracked and reviewed, with a defined target? — Without tracking, there’s no way to know whether the prioritization is actually working.
Evidence: STAT turnaround data

3. Where STAT turnaround targets are missed, is this logged and reviewed as a quality event? — Missed STAT targets with no follow-up suggest the system tolerates the failure.
Evidence: Quality event log

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

A flagging system exists but doesn’t genuinely alter processing order.
Turnaround is tracked but missed targets aren’t reviewed.

Implementation plan

When	What
Week 1	Observe whether current STAT flagging actually changes processing order.
Week 2	Set a specific turnaround target and build genuine prioritization.
Week 3	Build tracking and a review process for missed targets.
Ongoing	Review STAT performance monthly.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method	What	Detail
OBSERVE	Processing flow observation	Observes whether a flagged STAT specimen genuinely moves ahead in actual processing order.

Evidence base

Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute. GP27-A2: Using Proficiency Testing to Improve the Clinical Laboratory. Wayne (PA): CLSI; 2007.

6.8

Specimen Retention Before Discard

Standard

Tested specimens are retained for a defined minimum period appropriate to the test type before discard, allowing repeat testing or additional analysis to be requested without recollection.

In plain terms: Tested specimens are kept around for a sensible amount of time afterward, so a repeat test can happen without making the patient come back.

Facility category	Standalone lab	Hospital lab	Clinic lab
Applicability	Full	Full	Full

Why this matters

Different analytes genuinely have different stability profiles, which means a single blanket retention period applied regardless of test type will be either unnecessarily long for some specimens or too short for others. Retention that’s genuinely matched to each test’s real needs, with storage conditions that preserve the specimen appropriately, is what actually makes repeat testing possible rather than only theoretically available.

What good looks like

A written schedule varies retention period genuinely by test type.
Storage conditions actually match what each retained specimen requires.
A specific retained specimen can genuinely be located and retrieved.

Common failure modes

One blanket retention period is applied regardless of analyte stability.
Retained specimens are stored in conditions that don’t match their requirements.
Retention exists in policy but retrieval in practice proves difficult.

Worked example

In practice

A chemistry section with a single generic retention policy.

BeforeAll specimens were retained for a flat seven days regardless of test type, with no distinction between genuinely stable analytes and those that degrade much faster, and retained specimens were stored in a general refrigerator without specific condition matching.

ActionThe laboratory built a test-type-specific retention schedule based on actual analyte stability data, with appropriately matched storage conditions for each category.

AfterThe Monitor requested retrieval of a specimen from several days prior and the laboratory located and retrieved it within its stated retention window, stored under the correct condition for its test type. Criterion verified.

If you are starting from zero — do this first

Check whether your current retention period is genuinely analyte-appropriate, not one blanket figure.
Confirm storage conditions actually match what each retained specimen type needs.
Test retrieval of a specific older retained specimen.

The most common mistake: Applying one convenient, blanket retention period to all specimen types regardless of how differently they actually degrade over time.

Self-assessment questions

1. Does a written retention schedule exist by specimen and test type, not one blanket period applied regardless of test? — Different analytes have genuinely different stability and retention needs.
Evidence: Test-specific retention schedule

2. Is retained specimen storage condition-appropriate, matching what the specimen actually requires? — Retained specimens stored incorrectly are effectively unusable if a repeat test is later needed.
Evidence: Storage condition inspection

3. Can the laboratory locate and retrieve a specific retained specimen within its stated retention window? — A retention policy that exists but fails in practice when a specimen is actually needed again.
Evidence: Retrieval test

Common reasons for a PARTIAL answer

A single retention period is applied regardless of analyte-specific stability.
Retrieval in practice is slower or less reliable than the policy implies.

Implementation plan

When	What
Week 1	Review analyte-specific stability data for major test types.
Week 2	Build a test-type-specific retention schedule.
Week 3	Match storage conditions to each retention category.
Ongoing	Test retrieval periodically to confirm practical reliability.

How the Monitor verifies this

Method	What	Detail
ASK	Retrieval test	Requests retrieval of a specific retained specimen and times the result.

Evidence base

International Organization for Standardization. ISO 15189:2022, Medical laboratories — Requirements for quality and competence, Clause 7.2.10. Geneva: ISO; 2022.

← Laboratory Standards — all standards
Standard 7 — Examination: Process & Safety →