Necessity of Routine Repeat Testing of Critical Values in Various Working Shifts

Baseline assessment of staff perception of critical value practices in government hospitals in Kuwait

Background

Notification of laboratory-determined critical values is key for effective clinical decision making and is thus a consequential step in a patient’s health care and safety. This study presents an overview of staff reporting policies and procedures concerning critical values in Kuwaiti governmental hospitals.

Methods

A cross-sectional descriptive study design was adopted. Study subjects were affiliated with laboratories from five government hospitals (four general and one sub-specialty hospital). All laboratory staff in every hospital were included. The Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version 23) was used to analyse the collected data at a significance level of ≤ 0.05. Quantitative data analysis included univariate descriptive (means, medians, standard deviations, frequencies, percentages) and bivariate (chi-squared, ANOVA and Kruskal–Wallis tests) analyses. These analyses provided associations between participating hospitals and staff perceptions towards the policies and procedures surrounding critical values.

Results

559 questionnaires were returned, a total response of 30.5% after those of 79 phlebotomists were excluded (eligible sample size n = 1833). The notification of critical values differs between participated laboratories in delivering protocol and time duration. Linked protocols between laboratories did not exist regarding policies and guidelines for applying the same procedures for critical value notification. There are differences in critical value limits among the participating laboratories.

Conclusion

This study is the first to survey laboratory staff perceptions of critical value practices in Kuwaiti government hospitals. Enhancing critical value reporting and policy is crucial for improving patient safety and to develop high-quality health services. The findings of this study can help policy makers implement future intervention studies to enhance laboratory practices in the area of critical values and improve patient safety and the quality of government hospital systems.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-08329-z.

Incidence, characteristics and outcomes among inpatient, outpatient and emergency department with reported high critical serum potassium values

OBJECTIVES

Severe hyperkalemia can cause life-threatening arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, or death. This study aimed to investigate the incidence and the associated factors relevant to critical hyperkalemia (≥6 mmol/L) among inpatients, outpatients, and emergency department. Their clinical outcomes were also analyzed.

METHODS

All patients whose high serum potassium values had been reported as critical laboratory values in 2016 were enrolled. Their demographic data, comorbidities, clinical symptoms, biochemical data, and outcomes were reviewed and collected. The Charlson comorbidity score (CCS) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR) were computed to assess the comorbidity burden and renal function. Patients were divided into groups according to different settings, potassium and GFR levels, and their survival.

RESULTS

Of the 293,830 total serum potassium tests, 1,382 (0.47%) reports were listed as critical laboratory values. The average reply time was 6.3 min. Their mean age was 67.2 years, while the average GFR was 12.2 mL/min/1.73 m². The overall mortality rate was 34%. Patients in the emergency department had the highest incidence (0.92%), while inpatients had the worst outcome (51% mortality). The leading cause of mortality was septic shock. The fatal group had higher rates of clinical symptoms, higher potassium values, CCS, and eGFR (all p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the responses for the reports were obtained within a short period of time. Patients with reported high critical serum potassium values were characterized by high rates of comorbidity, reduced eGFR, and mortality. The incidence, clinical manifestations, and outcomes varied in the different clinical settings.