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

Yang, Fei; Zhao, Haijian; Wang, Wei; He, Falin; Zhong, Kangping; Yuan, Shuai; Wang, Zhiguo

doi:10.11613/bm.2017.030707

Cited by 11 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Turnaround time values in this study were better than the results of a study conducted by Fei et al in 937 laboratories in China. This study showed an 11 average TAT of 25 minutes. Research conducted by Agarwal, Chillar, and Tripathi in India showed TAT values ranging from 30-120 minutes.…”

Section: Quality Improvements Of Documentation Of Reporting Critical supporting

confidence: 48%

Analysis of the Diffrence of Completeness of Reporting and Documentation of Laboratory Critical Values Pre and Post-Intervention in Bona Ward Dr. Soetomo Hospital Surabaya

Zubir¹,

Kahar

Fuadi

et al. 2019

Indonesian J. Clin. Pathol. Med. Lab.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Completeness of laboratory critical values reporting and documentation in medical records is important for patient safety, hospital accreditation, and legality. Preliminary study in Dr. Soetomo Hospital’s ward showed the laboratory critical value report and documentation was 0% complete, 4% incomplete, and 96% undocumented. This was a quasi experimental study with one group pretest and posttest design. Technical guidance of laboratory critical values reporting and documentation in medical records and supervision were given to 26 doctors. The results evaluated were doctor knowledge and attitude towards critical value reporting, completeness of documentation in medical records, and turn around time (TAT). Reporting critical values samples number was 72 before and after the intervention. The critical values samples taken by purposive sampling. The data was analyzed using Mann-Whitney test. There were significant differences in the level of knowledge, doctor’s attitudes, and completeness of critical values documentation before and after the intervention. Doctors with good knowledge increased from 3.85% to 92.31%. The attitude to complete critical values documentation improved from 0% to 76%. Completeness of critical values documentation in medical records improved from 100% undocumented to 19.44% undocumented, 11.11% incomplete, and 69.45% complete. There were no significant differences of TAT before and after the intervention, all of TAT were less than 30 minutes and meeting the TAT category. The intervention succeeded in increasing doctor knowledge, attitude, and completeness of the laboratory critical values reporting and documentation in the patient's medical record. Keywords: Laboratory critical value, medical record, turn around time.

show abstract

Section: Quality Improvements Of Documentation Of Reporting Critical supporting

confidence: 48%

Analysis of the Diffrence of Completeness of Reporting and Documentation of Laboratory Critical Values Pre and Post-Intervention in Bona Ward Dr. Soetomo Hospital Surabaya

Zubir¹,

Kahar

Fuadi

et al. 2019

Indonesian J. Clin. Pathol. Med. Lab.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The use of sigma (σ) metrics is a great success in the areas of customer satisfaction and global profitability, 4 It was introduced into clinical laboratories by David Nevalainen1 in 2000. 5 Currently, sigma metrics had been widely used in many aspects of laboratory quality management including pre-analytic, 6,7 analytic, [8][9][10] and post-analytic 11 phases of testing. The analytical performance of analytes is quantitatively estimated as a sigma value.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the analytical performance of endocrine analytes using sigma metrics

Yanming

Cao

Liu

et al. 2020

Clinical Laboratory Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background (a) To evaluate the clinical performance of endocrine analytes using the sigma metrics (σ) model. (b) To redesign quality control strategies for performance improvement. Methods The sigma values of the analytes were initially evaluated based on the allowable total error (TEa), bias, and coefficient of variation (CV) at QC materials level 1 and 2 in March 2018. And then, the normalized QC performance decision charts, personalized QC rules, quality goal index (QGI) analysis, and root causes analysis (RCA) were performed based on the sigma values of the analytes. Finally, the sigma values were re‐evaluated in September 2018 after a series of targeted corrective actions. Results Based on the initial sigma values, two analytes (FT3 and TSH) with σ > 6, only needed one QC rule (13S) with N2 and R500 for QC management. On the other hand, seven analytes (FT4, TT4, CROT, E2, PRL, TESTO, and INS) with σ < 4 at one QC material level or both needed multiple rules (13S/22S/R4S/41S/10X) with N6 and R10‐500 depending on different sigma values for QC management. Subsequently, detailed and comprehensive RCA and timely corrective actions were performed on all the analytes base on the QGI analysis. Compared with the initial sigma values, the re‐evaluated sigma metrics of all the analytes increased significantly. Conclusions It was demonstrated that the combination of sigma metrics, QGI analysis, and RCA provided a useful evaluation system for the analytical performance of endocrine analytes.

show abstract

“…Laboratories generally repeat tests, especially for critical values, before reporting test results (15, 16, 17). Recently, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Q-Probes study (15) found that 61% of laboratories always repeated critical tests.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recently, the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Q-Probes study (15) found that 61% of laboratories always repeated critical tests. In a 2015 study of 1,589 laboratories by the National Center for Clinical Laboratories in China, 94.8% of the 973 responding laboratories reported repeat testing before searching for a critical value in the laboratory (17). However, the practicality of routinely verifying each critical value as a result of reanalysis has been questioned in recent years (8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a 2015 study of 1,589 laboratories by the National Center for Clinical Laboratories in China, 94.8% of the 973 responding laboratories reported repeat testing before searching for a critical value in the laboratory (17). However, the practicality of routinely verifying each critical value as a result of reanalysis has been questioned in recent years (8, 9, 10, 14, 17, 18). While we were unable to find a study that analyzed repeat testing of blood ethanol concentrations, our findings are similar to studies of repeat testing practices for common chemistry tests (8, 10).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Determining the need for repeat testing of blood ethanol concentration: Evaluation of the synchron blood ethyl alcohol assay kit

Üstündağ¹,

Huysal²,

Eren³

2019

Journal of Medical Biochemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Background In clinical laboratories, a common practice used to verify tests prior to reporting is repeat testing. Our objective was to evaluate the differences between the results of blood ethanol concentration (BEC) test repetitions and report on the role of repeat testing to prevent reporting of incorrect results. Methods We conducted a retrospective study of data retrieved from the Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Training and Research Hospital’s document management system by calculating the percentage change between repeated BEC test runs. To assess for clinical relevance, the bias between two results from the same sample was compared using the 1988 Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments’ (CLIA) proficiency testing allowable total error (TEa) limits. Results From a total of 1,627 BEC tests performed between January 2017 and January 2018, 70% (1,133) were repeat tested. Of these, 830 resulted in BECs between 0–5 mmol/L, of which 237 (28.5%) were above the 25% acceptable TEa. Two hundred seventy-six BEC test results were greater than >14 mmol/L, and there was a good consensus between the initial and repeat test results (99%). In this group, the mean bias was 0.0% (95%, CI = -9.8–9.8%). However, three of the repeat test results were considered significantly different. There were two discordant results in the 5–14 mmol/L ethanol level, and the mean bias was 2.1% (95%, CI = -15.0–19.1%). Conclusion The majority of the repeated BEC test values were the same as the baseline value; therefore, there may be limited benefit in continuing such frequent repeated analyses.

show abstract

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

Cited by 11 publications

References 20 publications

Analysis of the Diffrence of Completeness of Reporting and Documentation of Laboratory Critical Values Pre and Post-Intervention in Bona Ward Dr. Soetomo Hospital Surabaya

Analysis of the Diffrence of Completeness of Reporting and Documentation of Laboratory Critical Values Pre and Post-Intervention in Bona Ward Dr. Soetomo Hospital Surabaya

Evaluation of the analytical performance of endocrine analytes using sigma metrics

Determining the need for repeat testing of blood ethanol concentration: Evaluation of the synchron blood ethyl alcohol assay kit

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About