Ian M Barlow1. 1. PathLinks Pathology Department, Scunthorpe General Hospital, Cliff Gardens, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Adding or incorporating clinical interpretative comments on biochemistry results is widespread in UK laboratories; although this consumes considerable human resource, there is still little evidence to suggest that it is either effective or appreciated by our clinical colleagues. I therefore decided to survey our local general practitioners (GPs) and nurse practitioners to analyse whether they found biochemistry comments on reports helpful. METHODS: A simple questionnaire was designed and sent to 159 GPs and 81 nurse practitioners asking them whether they found this activity useful for the limited range of test groups that we routinely comment on and also whether they would like to see commenting on more groups of tests. RESULTS: Overall, 49.6% of questionnaires were returned. Of these, there was overwhelming support for commenting on reports and 77% would like to see comments on a greater range of tests. CONCLUSIONS: Although adding clinical interpretative comments is very time-consuming for senior laboratory staff, there is overwhelming support of this activity among our GPs and nurse practitioner users; therefore, our local policy of routinely adding clinical comments will remain for the foreseeable future.
BACKGROUND: Adding or incorporating clinical interpretative comments on biochemistry results is widespread in UK laboratories; although this consumes considerable human resource, there is still little evidence to suggest that it is either effective or appreciated by our clinical colleagues. I therefore decided to survey our local general practitioners (GPs) and nurse practitioners to analyse whether they found biochemistry comments on reports helpful. METHODS: A simple questionnaire was designed and sent to 159 GPs and 81 nurse practitioners asking them whether they found this activity useful for the limited range of test groups that we routinely comment on and also whether they would like to see commenting on more groups of tests. RESULTS: Overall, 49.6% of questionnaires were returned. Of these, there was overwhelming support for commenting on reports and 77% would like to see comments on a greater range of tests. CONCLUSIONS: Although adding clinical interpretative comments is very time-consuming for senior laboratory staff, there is overwhelming support of this activity among our GPs and nurse practitioner users; therefore, our local policy of routinely adding clinical comments will remain for the foreseeable future.