CONTEXT: Before being communicated to the caregiver, critical laboratory values are verified by repeat testing to ensure their accuracy and to avoid reporting false or erroneous results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 2 testing runs offered any advantage over a single testing run in ensuring accuracy or in avoiding the reporting of false or erroneous results. DESIGN: Within the hematology laboratory, 5 tests were selected: hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. A minimum of 500 consecutive critical laboratory test values were collected retrospectively for each test category. The absolute value and the percentage of change between the 2 testing runs for each critical value were calculated and averaged for each test category and then compared with our laboratory's preset, acceptable tolerance limits for reruns. RESULTS: The mean results obtained for the absolute value and the percentage of change between the testing runs were 0.08 g/dL (1.4%) for hemoglobin levels, 50 cells/µL (10.2%) for white blood cell counts, 1500 cells/µL (9.9%) for platelet counts, 0.7 seconds (1.4%) for prothrombin time, and 5.1 seconds (4.4%) for activated partial thromboplastin time (all within our laboratory's acceptable tolerance limits for reruns). The percentage of specimens with an absolute value or a mean percentage of change outside our laboratory's acceptable tolerance limits for reruns ranged between 0% and 2.2% among the test categories. No false or erroneous results were identified between the 2 testing runs in any category. CONCLUSIONS: Routine, repeat testing of critical hemoglobin level, platelet count, white blood cell count, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time results did not offer any advantage over a single run.
CONTEXT: Before being communicated to the caregiver, critical laboratory values are verified by repeat testing to ensure their accuracy and to avoid reporting false or erroneous results. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether 2 testing runs offered any advantage over a single testing run in ensuring accuracy or in avoiding the reporting of false or erroneous results. DESIGN: Within the hematology laboratory, 5 tests were selected: hemoglobin level, white blood cell count, platelet count, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time. A minimum of 500 consecutive critical laboratory test values were collected retrospectively for each test category. The absolute value and the percentage of change between the 2 testing runs for each critical value were calculated and averaged for each test category and then compared with our laboratory's preset, acceptable tolerance limits for reruns. RESULTS: The mean results obtained for the absolute value and the percentage of change between the testing runs were 0.08 g/dL (1.4%) for hemoglobin levels, 50 cells/µL (10.2%) for white blood cell counts, 1500 cells/µL (9.9%) for platelet counts, 0.7 seconds (1.4%) for prothrombin time, and 5.1 seconds (4.4%) for activated partial thromboplastin time (all within our laboratory's acceptable tolerance limits for reruns). The percentage of specimens with an absolute value or a mean percentage of change outside our laboratory's acceptable tolerance limits for reruns ranged between 0% and 2.2% among the test categories. No false or erroneous results were identified between the 2 testing runs in any category. CONCLUSIONS: Routine, repeat testing of critical hemoglobin level, platelet count, white blood cell count, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time results did not offer any advantage over a single run.
Authors: Julie Lv Shaw; Christopher R McCudden; David A Colantonio; Ronald A Booth; Danny C Lin; Ivan M Blasutig; Thomas Moran; Dana Trofimczuk; Chantal Carriere; Anas Gharra; Cheryl Portelance; Chantal Tremblay; Dianne Dupaul; Nathalie Breton; Merina Angelkovski; Chetan Jariwala; Maureen Embleton; Christine Campbell; Kristina Groulx; Karen Larmour Journal: Pract Lab Med Date: 2020-10-19