Literature DB >> 22750773

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.

Edward B Liebow1, James H Derzon, John Fontanesi, Alessandra M Favoretto, Rich Ann Baetz, Colleen Shaw, Pamela Thompson, Diana Mass, Robert Christenson, Paul Epner, Susan R Snyder.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review of the evidence available in support of automated notification methods and call centers and to acknowledge other considerations in making evidence-based recommendations for best practices in improving the timeliness and accuracy of critical value reporting. DESIGN AND METHODS: This review followed the Laboratory Medicine Best Practices (LMBP) review methods (Christenson, et al. 2011). A broad literature search and call for unpublished submissions returned 196 bibliographic records which were screened for eligibility. 41 studies were retrieved. Of these, 4 contained credible evidence for the timeliness and accuracy of automatic notification systems and 5 provided credible evidence for call centers for communicating critical value information in in-patient care settings.
RESULTS: Studies reporting improvement from implementing automated notification findings report mean differences and were standardized using the standard difference in means (d=0.42; 95% CI=0.2-0.62) while studies reporting improvement from implementing call centers generally reported criterion referenced findings and were standardized using odds ratios (OR=22.1; 95% CI=17.1-28.6).
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence, although suggestive, is not sufficient to make an LMBP recommendation for or against using automated notification systems as a best practice to improve the timeliness of critical value reporting in an in-patient care setting. Call centers, however, are effective in improving the timeliness of critical value reporting in an in-patient care setting, and meet LMBP criteria to be recommended as an "evidence-based best practice."
Copyright © 2012 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22750773      PMCID: PMC4518392          DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2012.06.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biochem        ISSN: 0009-9120            Impact factor:   3.281


  41 in total

1.  Wireless clinical alerts for physiologic, laboratory and medication data.

Authors:  M M Shabot; M LoBue; J Chen
Journal:  Proc AMIA Symp       Date:  2000

Review 2.  Laboratory results. Timeliness as a quality attribute and strategy.

Authors:  J H Howanitz; P J Howanitz
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 2.493

3.  Technology, work, and information flows: lessons from the implementation of a wireless alert pager system.

Authors:  Madhu C Reddy; David W McDonald; Wanda Pratt; M Michael Shabot
Journal:  J Biomed Inform       Date:  2004-12-08       Impact factor: 6.317

4.  Doing better with critical test results.

Authors:  David W Bates; Lucian L Leape
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2005-02

5.  Meeting regulatory requirements by the use of cell phone text message notification with autoescalation and loop closure for reporting of critical laboratory results.

Authors:  Sharon Saw; Tze Ping Loh; Sophia Bee Leng Ang; James W L Yip; Sunil Kumar Sethi
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 2.493

6.  Critical values: ASCP practice parameter. American Society of Clinical Pathologists.

Authors:  K Emancipator
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  1997-09       Impact factor: 2.493

7.  Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  G J Kuperman; J M Teich; M J Tanasijevic; N Ma'Luf; E Rittenberg; A Jha; J Fiskio; J Winkelman; D W Bates
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 4.497

8.  Nurses, pagers, and patient-specific criteria: three keys to improved critical value reporting.

Authors:  K E Tate; R M Gardner; K Scherting
Journal:  Proc Annu Symp Comput Appl Med Care       Date:  1995

9.  Analysis of laboratory critical value reporting at a large academic medical center.

Authors:  Anand S Dighe; Arjun Rao; Amanda B Coakley; Kent B Lewandrowski
Journal:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2006-05       Impact factor: 2.493

10.  National survey on critical values reporting in a cohort of Italian laboratories.

Authors:  Giuseppe Lippi; Davide Giavarina; Martina Montagnana; Gian Luca Salvagno; Piero Cappelletti; Mario Plebani; Gian Cesare Guidi
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 3.694

View more
  9 in total

Review 1.  Assessing Clinical Microbiology Practice Guidelines: American Society for Microbiology Ad Hoc Committee on Evidence-Based Laboratory Medicine Practice Guidelines Assessment.

Authors:  Irving Nachamkin; Thomas J Kirn; Lars F Westblade; Romney Humphries
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2017-08-23       Impact factor: 5.948

2.  Providers Electing to Receive Electronic Result Notifications: Demographics and Motivation.

Authors:  Benjamin H Slovis; William J K Vervilles; David K Vawdrey; Jordan L Swartz; Catherine Winans; John C Kairys; Jeffrey M Riggio
Journal:  Appl Clin Inform       Date:  2022-07-13       Impact factor: 2.762

3.  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

4.  Comparison of warfarin therapy clinical outcomes following implementation of an automated mobile phone-based critical laboratory value text alert system.

Authors:  Shu-Wen Lin; Wen-Yi Kang; Dong-Tsamn Lin; James Lee; Fe-Lin Wu; Chuen-Liang Chen; Yufeng J Tseng
Journal:  BMC Med Genomics       Date:  2014-05-08       Impact factor: 3.063

Review 5.  Asynchronous automated electronic laboratory result notifications: a systematic review.

Authors:  Benjamin H Slovis; Thomas A Nahass; Hojjat Salmasian; Gilad Kuperman; David K Vawdrey
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2017-11-01       Impact factor: 4.497

6.  The Effect of Laboratory Test-Based Clinical Decision Support Tools on Medication Errors and Adverse Drug Events: A Laboratory Medicine Best Practices Systematic Review.

Authors:  Nedra S Whitehead; Laurina Williams; Sreelatha Meleth; Sara Kennedy; Nneka Ubaka-Blackmoore; Michael Kanter; Kevin J O'Leary; David Classen; Brian Jackson; Daniel R Murphy; James Nichols; David Stockwell; Thomas Lorey; Paul Epner; Jennifer Taylor; Mark L Graber
Journal:  J Appl Lab Med       Date:  2019-03-11

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.  National survey on current situation of critical value reporting in 973 laboratories in China.

Authors:  Yang Fei; Haijian Zhao; Wei Wang; Falin He; Kun Zhong; Shuai Yuan; Zhiguo Wang
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2017-10-15       Impact factor: 2.313

9.  Analysis of laboratory critical values at a referral Spanish tertiary university hospital.

Authors:  Ariadna Arbiol-Roca; Sofía Corral-Comesaña; Ruth Cano-Corres; María José Castro-Castro; Macarena Dastis-Arias; Dolors Dot-Bach
Journal:  Biochem Med (Zagreb)       Date:  2018-12-15       Impact factor: 2.313

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.