Nonconformities in clinical laboratories in Macapá, Amapá, Brazil, based on the RDC no. 302/2005/Anvisa

• Main Authors: Mylner O. F. Souza (Author), Keren H. S. Souza (Author), Juvanete A. Távora (Author), Érika R. G. Costa (Author), Rafael L. Resque (Author), Madson R. F. Gomes (Author), Deyse S. Dantas (Author)
• Format: Book
• Published: Sociedade Brasileira de Patologia Clínica, 2020-07-01T00:00:00Z.
• Subjects: article
• Online Access: Connect to this object online.
• Notes: 1678-4774; 10.5935/1676-2444.20200039
• Keywords: clinical analysis laboratory; evaluation studies as a subject; legislation as a subject; Pathology; RB1-214
• Source: Jornal Brasileiro de Patologia e Medicina Laboratorial, Vol 56 (2020)

ABSTRACT Introduction: Clinical analysis laboratories are health care facilities that provide resources for outpatient and/or emergency diagnoses; they are regulated in Brazil by the Resolution of the Collegiate Board of Directors (RDC) no. 302, of October 13, 2005, of the Brazilian National Agency of Sanitary Surveillance (Anvisa). Objective: The aim of this study was to perform a normative evaluation in clinical analysis laboratories, based on RDC no. 302, of October 13, 2005. Material and method: This is a cross-sectional and descriptive study. Twelve clinical laboratories participated in the study. The data were obtained through a structured questionnaire and answered by the technical leaders of the participating laboratories, in the municipality of Macapá, Amapá, Brazil. Results: The average nonconformity found among the participants was 9.64%, which allowed an overall evaluation among them as satisfactory, in relation to the minimum requirements demanded by the standardization recommended by Anvisa. When the participants were analyzed individually, there was a variation from 4.82% to 21.69% of the nonconformities index. Other studies agree with the results, however there is disagreement in a research carried out in Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, possibly due to the fact that the laboratories present in this study do not have a quality management system in their processes. Conclusion: Laboratories 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, and 12 were rated as satisfactory. Laboratories 1, 5, 7, 8 and 10 were rated as partially satisfactory. No laboratories were rated as unsatisfactory.