Literature DB >> 19061281

Notification of critical results: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 121 institutions.

Paul N Valenstein1, Elizabeth A Wagar, Ana K Stankovic, Molly K Walsh, Frank Schneider.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: Hospital accreditors are placing increased emphasis on the timeliness with which critical laboratory results are reported to caregivers.
OBJECTIVE: To measure the speed of critical result notification at a group of laboratories, identify factors associated with faster reporting, and place findings in the context of the time required to transport and test specimens and to correct critical abnormalities.
DESIGN: Contemporaneous review of 3545 inpatient and emergency department critical result notifications in 121 laboratories enrolled in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program.
RESULTS: The median laboratory required a median of 5 minutes for staff to notify someone about a critical result once testing was complete. Laboratories affiliated with smaller institutions (P = .01), rural laboratories (P = .001), and sites that called results before releasing them from the laboratory computer (P = .02) were able to notify caregivers more quickly. There was variation among institutions in the time it took to notify caregivers (interquartile range, 1.5-8 minutes). At the median facility, notification took place 56.5 minutes after the specimen had been collected.
CONCLUSIONS: The time required to notify caregivers of a critical laboratory result is a small proportion of the time taken to collect and test specimens or the time that has been reported for caregivers to correct abnormalities. Although failure to notify caregivers of critical results may represent an important patient safety vulnerability, the timeliness of laboratory notification is a minor contributor to total test turnaround time at most institutions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19061281     DOI: 10.5858/132.12.1862

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med        ISSN: 0003-9985            Impact factor:   5.534


  16 in total

Review 1.  Effectiveness of automated notification and customer service call centers for timely and accurate reporting of critical values: a laboratory medicine best practices systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Edward B Liebow; James H Derzon; John Fontanesi; Alessandra M Favoretto; Rich Ann Baetz; Colleen Shaw; Pamela Thompson; Diana Mass; Robert Christenson; Paul Epner; Susan R Snyder
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2012-06-29       Impact factor: 3.281

Review 2.  Consensus Statement for the Management and Communication of High Risk Laboratory Results.

Authors:  Craig Campbell; Grahame Caldwell; Penelope Coates; Robert Flatman; Andrew Georgiou; Andrea Rita Horvath; Que Lam; Hans Schneider
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2015-08

Review 3.  Pathology consultation on reporting of critical values.

Authors:  Jonathan R Genzen; Christopher A Tormey
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 2.493

4.  Critical findings: timing of notification in neuroradiology.

Authors:  S E Honig; E L Honig; L B Babiarz; J S Lewin; B Berlanstein; D M Yousem
Journal:  AJNR Am J Neuroradiol       Date:  2014-04-10       Impact factor: 3.825

5.  Towards harmonisation of critical laboratory result management - review of the literature and survey of australasian practices.

Authors:  Ca Campbell; Ar Horvath
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2012-11

6.  Optimizing the pathology workstation "cockpit": Challenges and solutions.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Krupinski
Journal:  J Pathol Inform       Date:  2010-10-01

7.  Croatian survey on critical results reporting.

Authors:  Lara Milevoj Kopcinovic; Jasenka Trifunović; Tihana Pavosevic; Nora Nikolac
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2015-06-05       Impact factor: 2.313

8.  Clinical laboratory services for primary healthcare centers in urban cities: a pilot ACO model of ten primary healthcare centers.

Authors:  Soha A Tashkandi; Ali Alenezi; Ismail Bakhsh; Abdullah AlJuryyan; Zahir H AlShehry; Saeed AlRashdi; Maryjane Guzman; Marvin Pono; Franklin Lim; April Rose Tabudlong; Lamees Elwan; Musa Fagih; Ahmad Aboabat
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2021-05-27       Impact factor: 2.497

9.  Analysis of laboratory repeat critical values at a large tertiary teaching hospital in China.

Authors:  Dagan Yang; Yunxian Zhou; Chunwei Yang
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-03-14       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Information technology to improve patient safety: A round table discussion from the 5(th) International Patient Safety Forum, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, April 14-16, 2015.

Authors:  Yaseen M Arabi; Brian W Pickering; Hasan M Al-Dorzi; Abdulmohsen Alsaawi; Saad M Al-Qahtani; Alasdair W Hay
Journal:  Ann Thorac Med       Date:  2016 Jul-Sep       Impact factor: 2.219

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.