Literature DB >> 23267247

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

Ca Campbell1, Ar Horvath.   

Abstract

Timely release and communication of critical test results may have significant impact on medical decisions and subsequent patient outcomes. Laboratories therefore have an important responsibility and contribution to patient safety. Certification, accreditation and regulatory bodies also require that laboratories follow procedures to ensure patient safety, but there is limited guidance on best practices. In Australasia, no specific requirements exist in this area and critical result reporting practices have been demonstrated to be heterogeneous worldwide.Recognising the need for agreed standards and critical limits, the AACB started a quality initiative to harmonise critical result management throughout Australasia. The first step toward harmonisation is to understand current laboratory practices. Fifty eight Australasian laboratories responded to a survey and 36 laboratories shared their critical limits. Findings from this survey are compared to international practices reviewed in various surveys conducted elsewhere. For the successful operation of a critical result management system, critical tests and critical limits must be defined in collaboration with clinicians. Reporting procedures must include how critical results are identified; who can report and who can receive critical results; what is an acceptable timeframe within which results must be delivered or, if reporting fails, what escalation procedures should follow; what communication channels or systems should be used; what should be recorded and how; and how critical result procedures should be maintained and evaluated to assess impact on outcomes.In this paper we review the literature of current standards and recommendations for critical result management. Key elements of critical result reporting are discussed in view of the findings of various national surveys on existing laboratory practices, including data from our own survey in Australasia. Best practice recommendations are made that laboratories are expected to follow in order to provide high quality and safe service to patients.

Entities:  

Year:  2012        PMID: 23267247      PMCID: PMC3529552     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev        ISSN: 0159-8090


  19 in total

1.  A survey of laboratory 'critical (alert) limits' in the UK.

Authors:  J Tillman; J H Barth
Journal:  Ann Clin Biochem       Date:  2003-03       Impact factor: 2.057

2.  Eight recommendations for policies for communicating abnormal test results.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Meena S Vij
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Patient Saf       Date:  2010-05

Review 3.  Global trends in critical values practices and their harmonization.

Authors:  Gerald J Kost; Kristin N Hale
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2010-11-22       Impact factor: 3.694

4.  Critical (panic) value notification: an established laboratory practice policy (parameter)

Authors:  G D Lundberg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1990-02-02       Impact factor: 56.272

5.  Critical value of the clinical laboratory test in Thailand.

Authors:  Kulnaree Sirisali; Sudarat Manochiopinij; Pairoj Leelahakul; Varaporn Ruengrai; Apsorn Sattayakom; Sophon Sirisali
Journal:  J Med Assoc Thai       Date:  2010-11

6.  Assessment of critical values policies in Italian institutions: comparison with the US situation.

Authors:  Elisa Piva; Laura Sciacovelli; Michael Laposata; Mario Plebani
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 3.694

7.  Quality Indicators in Laboratory Medicine: from theory to practice. Preliminary data from the IFCC Working Group Project "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety".

Authors:  Laura Sciacovelli; Maurice O'Kane; Younis Abdelwahab Skaik; Patrizio Caciagli; Cristina Pellegrini; Giorgio Da Rin; Agnes Ivanov; Timothy Ghys; Mario Plebani
Journal:  Clin Chem Lab Med       Date:  2011-02-23       Impact factor: 3.694

8.  Laboratory critical values policies and procedures: a college of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study in 623 institutions.

Authors:  Peter J Howanitz; Steven J Steindel; Nan V Heard
Journal:  Arch Pathol Lab Med       Date:  2002-06       Impact factor: 5.534

9.  Critical limits for emergency clinician notification at United States children's hospitals.

Authors:  G J Kost
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  A national survey on pediatric critical values used in clinical laboratories across Canada.

Authors:  Yanping Gong; Khosrow Adeli
Journal:  Clin Biochem       Date:  2009-08-13       Impact factor: 3.281

View more
  12 in total

Review 1.  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

2.  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

3.  An evaluation of adult critical result policies in haematology in a teaching hospital in China.

Authors:  Dagan Yang; Qian Cai; Xinglun Qi; Lili Xu; Yunxian Zhou
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2019-02

4.  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

5.  Delivering safe and effective test-result communication, management and follow-up: a mixed-methods study protocol.

Authors:  Maria R Dahm; Andrew Georgiou; Johanna I Westbrook; David Greenfield; Andrea R Horvath; Denis Wakefield; Ling Li; Ken Hillman; Patrick Bolton; Anthony Brown; Graham Jones; Robert Herkes; Robert Lindeman; Michael Legg; Meredith Makeham; Daniel Moses; Dauda Badmus; Craig Campbell; Rae-Anne Hardie; Julie Li; Euan McCaughey; Gorkem Sezgin; Judith Thomas; Nasir Wabe
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-02-15       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Adding Value in the Postanalytical Phase.

Authors:  Éva Ajzner
Journal:  EJIFCC       Date:  2016-04-20

7.  The Impact for Patient Outcomes of Failure to Follow Up on Test Results. How Can We Do Better?

Authors:  Joanne Callen; Andrew Georgiou; Julie Li; Johanna I Westbrook
Journal:  EJIFCC       Date:  2015-01-27

8.  Harmonization of Clinical Laboratory Information - Current and Future Strategies.

Authors:  Mario Plebani
Journal:  EJIFCC       Date:  2016-02-09

9.  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

10.  Critical Risk Results - An Update on International Initiatives.

Authors:  Q Lam; E Ajzner; C A Campbell; A Young
Journal:  EJIFCC       Date:  2016-02-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.