SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türk Biyokimya Dergisi / 2017 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 1

Delays in reporting critical values from clinical laboratories to responsible healthcare staff

Klinik laboratuvarlardan kritik değerlerin sorumlu sağlık personeline bildiriminde gözlenen gecikmeler

Oğuzhan ÖZCAN
Gökhan ÇAKIRCA
Zafer YÖNDEN
Sedat MOTOR
Pages
45–50
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Conclusion: Laboratory professionals should work in collaboration with responsible clinician and healthcare staff in critical value reporting process

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: We aimed to investigate the frequency of delayed notifications and probable causes of delays for critical value notification in clinical laboratory of university hospital.Materials and methods: All data was obtained from critical value reporting forms and laboratory information system.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The frequency and location of critical and delayed results, latencies throughout a working day and the professional status who received the critical callbacks were shown as percentages.Results: A total of 2018 (1.02%) critical values were reported and 13.1% of them were delayed notifications.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Conclusion: Laboratory professionals should work in collaboration with responsible clinician and healthcare staff in critical value reporting process
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to investigate the frequency of delayed notifications and probable causes of delays for critical value notification in clinical laboratory of university hospital.Materials and methods: All data was obtained from critical value reporting forms and laboratory information system. The frequency and location of critical and delayed results, latencies throughout a working day and the professional status who received the critical callbacks were shown as percentages.Results: A total of 2018 (1.02%) critical values were reported and 13.1% of them were delayed notifications. Most of them were observed in laboratory tests ordered from patients of service and polyclinics compared to ICU and emergency department (26.7%, 26%, 6.2% and 4.9%, respectively, p < 0.01). Delayed notifications were significantly higher for biochemical parameters (19.7%, p < 0.001) and observed particularly in morning hours (06:00 a.m.–10:00 a.m.), lunch break time (12:00–14:00) and end of the working day (16:00–18:00). Latencies of mild-delayed reporting were 18.5 ± 4.4 min for 62.8% and advanced-delayed reporting were 47.1 ± 11.3 min for 37.2% of total delayed notifications. Most of the critical results were reported to the health care staff other than physician (55.6%). Conclusion: Laboratory professionals should work in collaboration with responsible clinician and healthcare staff in critical value reporting process

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmada üniversite hastanesi klinik laboratuvarından yapılan kritik değer bildirimlerinde yaşanan gecikmelerin sıklığını ve olası gecikme nedenlerini araştırmayı amaçladık.Materyal ve Metotlar: Kritik değerlerin ve geciken bildirimlerin sıklığı, bildirim yeri, bildirim yapılan personel ve gün içi gecikme süreleri yüzdeler halinde gösterilmiştir.Sonuçlar: Toplamda 2018 (%1.02) kritik değer bildirimi yapılmış olup bunların %13.1'i gecikmiş bildirim olarak gerçekleşmiştir. Geciken bildirimler servis ve poliklinik hastalarından yapılan istemlerde acil servis ve yoğun bakımlara göre daha yüksek oranda gözlenmiştir (sırasıyla, %26.7, %26, %6.2 ve %4.9 p < 0.01). En fazla gecikme biyokimya parametrelerinde (%19.7, p < 0.001) ortaya cıkmış olup en çok gecikmenin sırasıyla sabah saatlerinde (06:00-10:00), öğle arası (12:00-14:00) ve mesai bitiminde görev değişim saatlerinde (16:00-18:00) gerçekleştiği gözlenmiştir. Bildirimlerin %62.8'inde ortalama 18.5 ± 4.4 dakika (hafif gecikme), %37.2'sinde ise ortalama olarak 47.1 ± 11.3 dakika (ileri derecede gecikme) gecikme yaşanmıştır. Kritik bildirimlerin çoğu sorumlu hekim dışındaki sağlık çalışanlarına yapılmıştır (%55.6).Sonuç: Laboratuvar uzmanları kritik değer bildirim süreçlerini sorumlu klinisyen ve sağlık çalışanları ile işbirliği içerisinde planlanmalıdır

🔖

Cite This Article

ÖZCAN, O., ÇAKIRCA, G., YÖNDEN, Z., MOTOR, S. (2022). Delays in reporting critical values from clinical laboratories to responsible healthcare staff. Türk Biyokimya Dergisi, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 1, 45–50. https://ajindex.com/articles/621299

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Lundberg G. When to panic over an abnormal value. Med Lab Obs 1972;4:47–54
  2. Lundberg GD. Critical (panic) value notification: an established laboratory practice policy (parameter). J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:709
  3. Kost GJ. Critical limits for urgent clinician notification at US medical centers. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:704–7
  4. Kost GJ. Critical limits for emergency clinician notification at United States children’s hospitals. Pediatrics 1991;88:597–603
  5. Tillman J, Barth JH, ACB National Audit Group. A survey of laboratory ‘critical (alert) limits’ in the UK. Ann Clin Biochem 2003;40:181–4
  6. Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Tanasijevic MJ, Ma’Luf N, Rittenberg E, Jha A, et al. Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of a randomised controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999;6:512–22
  7. Piva E, Sciacovelli L, Zaninotto M, Laposata M, Plebani M. Evaluation of effectiveness of a computerized notification system for reporting critical values. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:432–41
  8. Dighe AS, Rao A, Coakley AB, Lewandrowski KB. Analysis Of laboratory critical value reporting at a large academic medical center. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;125:758–64
  9. Onyenekwu CP, Hudson CL, Zemlin AE, Erasmus RT. The impact of repeat-testing of common chemistry analytes at critical concentrations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:1739–45
  10. Sirota RL. The Institute of Medicine’s report on medical error: implications for pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1674–8
  11. Agarwal R, Chhillar N, Tripathi CB. Study of variables affecting critical value notification in a laboratory catering to tertiary care hospital. Indian J Clin Biochem 2015;30:89–93
  12. Valenstein PN, Wagar EA, Stankovic AK, Walsh MK, Schneider F. Notification of critical results: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 121 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008;132:1862–7
  13. Wagar EA, Stankovic AK, Wilkinson DS, Walsh M, Souers RH. Assessment monitoring of laboratory critical values: a College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study of 180 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:44–9
  14. Carroll AE, Saluja S, Tarczy-Hornoch P. Development of a personal digital assistant (PDA) based client/server NICU patient data and charting system. Proc Am Med Inform Assoc Symp 2001;100–4
  15. Howanitz PJ, Steindel SJ, Heard NV. Laboratory critical values policies and procedures a college of american pathologists