Assuring the quality of interpretative comments in clinical chemistry

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The provision of interpretative advice on laboratory results is a post-analytic activity and an integral part of clinical laboratory services. It is valued by healthcare workers and has the potential to prevent or reduce errors and improve patient outcomes. It is important to ensure that interpretative comments provided by laboratory personnel are of high quality: comments should be patient-focused and answer the implicit or explicit question raised by the requesting clinician. Comment providers need to be adequately trained and qualified and be able to demonstrate their proficiency to provide advice on laboratory reports. External quality assessment (EQA) schemes can play a part in assessing and demonstrating the competence of such laboratory staff and have an important role in their education and continuing professional development. A standard structure is proposed for EQA schemes for interpretative comments in clinical chemistry, which addresses the scope and method of assessment including nomenclature and marking scales. There is a need for evidence that participation in an EQA program for interpretative commenting facilitates improved quality of comments. It is proposed that standardizing goals and methods of assessment as well as nomenclature and marking scales may help accumulate evidence to demonstrate the impact of participation in EQA for interpretative commenting on patient outcome.

Related collections

Most cited references 24

Record: found
Abstract: not found
Article: not found

The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy

Rex Rowley (2007)

0 comments Cited 180 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The detection and prevention of errors in laboratory medicine.

Mario Plebani (2010)

The last few decades have seen a significant decrease in the rates of analytical errors in clinical laboratories. Evidence demonstrates that pre- and post-analytical steps of the total testing process (TTP) are more error-prone than the analytical phase. Most errors are identified in pre-pre-analytic and post-post-analytic steps outside of the laboratory. In a patient-centred approach to the delivery of health-care services, there is the need to investigate, in the TTP, any possible defect that may have a negative impact on the patient. In the interests of patients, any direct or indirect negative consequence related to a laboratory test must be considered, irrespective of which step is involved and whether the error depends on a laboratory professional (e.g. calibration/testing error) or non-laboratory operator (e.g. inappropriate test request, error in patient identification and/or blood collection). Patient misidentification and problems communicating results, which affect the delivery of diagnostic services, are recognized as the main goals for quality improvement. International initiatives aim at improving these aspects. Grading laboratory errors on the basis of their seriousness should help identify priorities for quality improvement and encourage a focus on corrective/preventive actions. It is important to consider not only the actual patient harm sustained but also the potential worst-case outcome if such an error were to reoccur. The most important lessons we have learned are that system theory also applies to laboratory testing and that errors and injuries can be prevented by redesigning systems that render it difficult for all health-care professionals to make mistakes.

0 comments Cited 81 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Exploring the iceberg of errors in laboratory medicine.

Mario Plebani (2009)

The last few decades have seen a significant decrease in the rates of analytical errors in clinical laboratories, and currently available evidence demonstrates that the pre- and post-analytical steps of the total testing process (TTP) are more error-prone than the analytical phase. In particular, most errors are identified in pre-pre-analytic and post-post analytic steps outside the walls of the laboratory, and beyond its control. However, in a patient-centered approach to the delivery of health care services, there is the need to investigate any possible defect in the total testing process that may have a negative impact on the patient. In fact, in the interests of patients, any direct or indirect negative consequence related to a laboratory test must be considered, irrespective of which step is involved and whether the error is caused by a laboratory professional (e.g., calibration or testing error) or by a non-laboratory operator (e.g., inappropriate test request, error in patient identification and/or blood collection). Data on diagnostic errors in primary care and in the emergency department setting demonstrate that inappropriate test requesting and incorrect interpretation account for a large percentage of total errors whatever the discipline involved, be it radiology, pathology or laboratory medicine. Patient misidentification and problems in communicating results, which affect the delivery of all diagnostic services, are widely recognized as the main goals for quality improvement. Therefore, some common problems affect diagnostic errors, although specific faults characterising errors in laboratory medicine should lead to preventive and corrective actions if evidence-based quality indicators are developed, implemented and monitored. The lesson we have learned is that each practice must examine its own total testing process to discover its weaknesses and identify appropriate remedies.