Utility of Repeat Testing of Critical Values: A Q-Probes Analysis of 86 Clinical Laboratories

Abstract

Context.-A common laboratory practice is to repeat critical values before reporting the test results to the clinical care provider. This may be an unnecessary step that delays the reporting of critical test results without adding value to the accuracy of the test result.Objectives.-To determine the proportions of repeated chemistry and hematology critical values that differ significantly from the original value as defined by the participating laboratory, to determine the threshold differences defined by the laboratory as clinically significant, and to determine the additional time required to analyze the repeat test.Design.-Participants prospectively reviewed critical test results for 4 laboratory tests: glucose, potassium, white blood cell count, and platelet count. Participants reported the following information: initial and repeated test result; time initial and repeat results were first known to laboratory staff; critical result notification time; if the repeat result was still a critical result; if the repeat result was significantly different from the initial result, as judged by the laboratory professional or policy; significant difference threshold, as defined by the laboratory; the make and model of the instrument used for primary and repeat testing.Results.-Routine, repeat analysis of critical values is a common practice. Most laboratories did not formally define a significant difference between repeat results. Repeated results were rarely considered significantly different. Median repeated times were at least 17 to 21 minutes for 10% of laboratories. Twenty percent of laboratories reported at least 1 incident in the last calendar year of delayed result reporting that clinicians indicated had adversely affected patient care.Conclusion.-Routine repeat analysis of automated chemistry and hematology critical values is unlikely to be clinically useful and may adversely affect patient care.( This Q-Probes study was designed to determine the proportion of repeated critical results, the proportion of

Croatian survey on critical results reporting

“…Indeed, although the CCMB recommends re-analyzing critical tests to rule out possible erroneous results, recent investigations demonstrated that re-analyzing of critical results adds little to test reliability, and ultimately to patient safety ( 17 ). Additionally, repeated verifications necessarily delay critical results notification and increase laboratory costs ( 26 - 28 ). …”

Enhance the effectiveness of clinical laboratory critical values initiative notification by implementing a closed‐loop system: A five‐year retrospective observational study

“…A growing number of publications have addressed the reporting of critical values . A CAP‐sponsored study of 121 institutions determined that it takes a total of 7 minutes for technician to notify clinicians about a critical result once testing was complete .…”

Assessing Clinical Laboratory Quality: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of Prothrombin Time INR Structures, Processes, and Outcomes in 98 Laboratories

“…[18][19][20] We found clinical laboratory policies and procedures of reporting critical value results highly variable. For example, the INR critical limit used ranged from 2.6 to 10.0 with a median of 4.5, and there were 18 different limits, with the most common limits being 5.0 (24%), 4.0 (23%), 4.5 (10%), and 6.0 (10%).…”