Literature DB >> 27575266

Validating Laboratory Results in Electronic Health Records: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study.

Peter L Perrotta, Donald S Karcher1.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: -Laboratories must ensure that the test results and pathology reports they transmit to a patient's electronic health record (EHR) are accurate, complete, and presented in a useable format.
OBJECTIVE: -To determine the accuracy, completeness, and formatting of laboratory test results and pathology reports transmitted from the laboratory to the EHR.
DESIGN: -Participants from 45 institutions retrospectively reviewed results from 16 different laboratory tests, including clinical and anatomic pathology results, within the EHR used by their providers to view laboratory results. Results were evaluated for accuracy, presence of required elements, and usability. Both normal and abnormal results were reviewed for tests, some of which were performed in-house and others at a reference laboratory.
RESULTS: -Overall accuracy for test results transmitted to the EHR was greater than 99.3% (1052 of 1059). There was lower compliance for completeness of test results, with 69.6% (732 of 1051) of the test results containing all essential reporting elements. Institutions that had fewer than half of their orders entered electronically had lower test result completeness rates. The rate of appropriate formatting of results was 90.9% (98 of 1010).
CONCLUSIONS: -The great majority of test results are accurately transmitted from the laboratory to the EHR; however, lower percentages are transmitted completely and in a useable format. Laboratories should verify the accuracy, completeness, and format of test results at the time of test implementation, after test changes, and periodically.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27575266      PMCID: PMC5513146          DOI: 10.5858/arpa.2015-0320-CP

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


  7 in total

1.  The management of test results in primary care: does an electronic medical record make a difference?

Authors:  Nancy C Elder; Timothy R McEwen; John Flach; Jennie Gallimore; Harini Pallerla
Journal:  Fam Med       Date:  2010-05       Impact factor: 1.756

Review 2.  Computerized physician order entry in critical care.

Authors:  Kirsten Colpaert; Johan Decruyenaere
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol       Date:  2009-03

3.  Notification of abnormal lab test results in an electronic medical record: do any safety concerns remain?

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Eric J Thomas; Dean F Sittig; Lindsey Wilson; Donna Espadas; Myrna M Khan; Laura A Petersen
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 4.965

4.  An analysis of clinical queries in an electronic health record search utility.

Authors:  Karthik Natarajan; Daniel Stein; Samat Jain; Noémie Elhadad
Journal:  Int J Med Inform       Date:  2010-04-24       Impact factor: 4.046

5.  Numeracy and literacy independently predict patients' ability to identify out-of-range test results.

Authors:  Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Nicole L Exe; Holly O Witteman
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2014-08-08       Impact factor: 5.428

6.  Developing patient-friendly genetic and genomic test reports: formats to promote patient engagement and understanding.

Authors:  Susanne B Haga; Rachel Mills; Kathryn I Pollak; Catherine Rehder; Adam H Buchanan; Isaac M Lipkus; Jennifer H Crow; Michael Datto
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2014-07-31       Impact factor: 11.117

Review 7.  Patients' online access to their electronic health records and linked online services: a systematic interpretative review.

Authors:  Simon de Lusignan; Freda Mold; Aziz Sheikh; Azeem Majeed; Jeremy C Wyatt; Tom Quinn; Mary Cavill; Toto Anne Gronlund; Christina Franco; Umesh Chauhan; Hannah Blakey; Neha Kataria; Fiona Barker; Beverley Ellis; Phil Koczan; Theodoros N Arvanitis; Mary McCarthy; Simon Jones; Imran Rafi
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2014-09-08       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total
  3 in total

Review 1.  The ins and outs of molecular pathology reporting.

Authors:  Véronique Tack; Kelly Dufraing; Zandra C Deans; Han J van Krieken; Elisabeth M C Dequeker
Journal:  Virchows Arch       Date:  2017-03-26       Impact factor: 4.064

2.  Clinical laboratory test-wide association scan of polygenic scores identifies biomarkers of complex disease.

Authors:  Jessica K Dennis; Julia M Sealock; Peter Straub; Younga H Lee; Donald Hucks; Ky'Era Actkins; Annika Faucon; Yen-Chen Anne Feng; Tian Ge; Slavina B Goleva; Maria Niarchou; Kritika Singh; Theodore Morley; Jordan W Smoller; Douglas M Ruderfer; Jonathan D Mosley; Guanhua Chen; Lea K Davis
Journal:  Genome Med       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 11.117

3.  Improving American Healthcare Through "Clinical Lab 2.0": A Project Santa Fe Report.

Authors:  James M Crawford; Khosrow Shotorbani; Gaurav Sharma; Michael Crossey; Tarush Kothari; Thomas S Lorey; Jeffrey W Prichard; Myra Wilkerson; Nancy Fisher
Journal:  Acad Pathol       Date:  2017-04-18
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.