A Retrospective Analysis of Corrected Laboratory Results in a Large Academic Medical Center

Critical Test Result Recall Supporting System (CTR RSS) Improves Follow-Up among Patients in the Community

Follow-up care of patients in the community is an important topic for improving patient outcomes, especially when medical personnel receives a notification of the critical test result (CTR) when the CTR becomes available after patients have been out of hospital; how to recall the patient back to the hospital and follow-up treatment is essential for preventing the healthcare risk of neglecting or delayed intervention with respect to the patient’s CTR. We are concerned that the follow-up of CTR and timely recall of our patients in the community improves and facilitates patient safety. We built the CTR Recall Supporting System (RSS) to follow up and recall our patients in the community. Measures were introduced to evaluate the effectiveness of CTR RSS; the rate of return of patients within 7 days increased from 58.5% to 88.8%, an increase of 30.3%, the patients in the community’s return follow-up interval days decreased from 10.9 days to 6.2 days, reduced by 4.7 days (p < 0.001), and the mortality rate of the patients in the community within 48 h decreased from 8.0% to 1.9%, a decrease of 6.1%, p < 0.001. The implementation of the CTR RSS significantly increases the discharged patient in he community’s CTR return follow-up within 7 days rate, decreases CTR return follow-up interval days, and reduces the CTR mortality rate within 48 h. This effectively improves the effects of CTR on return follow-up visits and provides a prototype system for hospitals that intend to improve this issue.

Errors within the total laboratory testing process, from test selection to medical decision-making - A review of causes, consequences, surveillance and solutions

Laboratory analyses are crucial for diagnosis, follow-up and treatment decisions. Since mistakes in every step of the total testing process may potentially affect patient safety, a broad knowledge and systematic assessment of laboratory errors is essential for future improvement. In this review, we aim to discuss the types and frequencies of potential errors in the total testing process, quality management options, as well as tentative solutions for improvement. Unlike most currently available reviews on this topic, we also include errors in test-selection, reporting and interpretation/action of test results. We believe that laboratory specialists will need to refocus on many process steps belonging to the extra-analytical phases, intensifying collaborations with clinicians and supporting test selection and interpretation. This would hopefully lead to substantial improvements in these activities, but may also bring more value to the role of laboratory specialists within the health care setting.