Utility of repeat testing of critical values: a Q-probes analysis of 86 clinical laboratories

Web-accessible critical limits and critical values for urgent clinician notification

OBJECTIVES

To survey the World Wide Web for critical limits/critical values, assess changes in quantitative low/high thresholds since 1990-93, streamline urgent notification practices, and promote global accessibility.

METHODS

We identified Web-posted lists of critical limits/values at university hospitals. We compared 2023 to 1990-93 archived notification thresholds.

RESULTS

We found critical notification lists for 26 university hospitals. Laboratory disciplines ranged widely (1-10). The median number of tests was 62 (range 21-116); several posted policies. The breadth of listings increased. Statistically significant differences in 2023 vs. 1990 critical limits were observed for blood gas (pO2, pCO2), chemistry (glucose, calcium, magnesium), and hematology (hemoglobin, platelets, PTT, WBC) tests, and for newborn glucose, potassium, pO2, and hematocrit. Twenty hospitals listed ionized calcium critical limits, which have not changed. Fourteen listed troponin (6), troponin I (3), hs-TnI (3), or troponin T (2). Qualitative critical values expanded across disciplines, encompassing anatomic/surgical pathology. Bioterrorism agents were listed frequently, as were contagious pathogens, although only three hospitals listed COVID-19. Only one notification list detailed point-of-care tests. Two children's hospital lists were Web-accessible.

CONCLUSIONS

Urgent notifications should focus on life-threatening conditions. We recommend that hospital staff evaluate changes over the past three decades for clinical impact. Notification lists expanded, especially qualitative tests, suggesting that automation might improve efficiency. Sharing notification lists and policies on the Web will improve accessibility. If not dependent on the limited scope of secondary sources, artificial intelligence could enhance knowledge of urgent notification and critical care practices in the 21st Century.

An appraisal of the practice of duplicate testing for the detection of irregular analytical errors

OBJECTIVES

Our study aimed to determine the usefulness of duplicate testing in identifying irregular analytical errors and subsequent prevention of patient mismanagement.

METHODS

In our laboratory, all requests for Na+, Ca2+, alkaline phosphatase (ALP), and high-sensitivity cardiac-troponin-I (hs-cTnI) are run in duplicate. Data from four separate weeks for Na+ (n=21,649), Ca2+ (n=14,803) and ALP (n=19,698); and a full year for hs-cTnI (n=17,036) were gathered. For each test, pre-defined limits for differences between duplicates were used to identify erroneous results (Fliers). We further characterised a subset of such fliers as "critical errors", where duplicates fell on opposing sides of a reference/decision making threshold. The costs/benefits of running these tests in duplicate were then considered in light of increased number of tests analysed by this approach.

RESULTS

For Na+, 0.03 % of duplicates met our flier defining criteria, and 0.01 % of specimens were considered critical errors. For Ca2+ requests, 4.58 % of results met our flier defining criteria and 0.84 % were critical errors. For ALP, 0.22 % of results were fliers, and 0.01 % were critical errors. For hs-cTnI, 1.58 % of results were classified as fliers, whilst 0.14 % were classified as a critical error. Depending on the test in question, running all analyses in duplicate increased annual costs by as little as €1,100 (for sodium), and as much as €48,000 (for hs-cTnI).

CONCLUSIONS

Duplicate testing is effective at identifying and mitigating irregular laboratory errors, and is best suited for assays predisposed to such error, where costs are minimal, and clinical significance of an incorrect result can justify the practice.

Delta checks

Delta check is an electronic error detection tool. It compares the difference in sequential results within a patient against a predefined limit, and when exceeded, the delta check rule is considered triggered. The patient results should be withheld for review and troubleshooting before releasing to the clinical team for patient management. Delta check was initially developed as a tool to detect wrong-blood-in-tube (sample misidentification) errors. It is now applied to detect errors more broadly within the total testing process. Recent advancements in the theoretical understanding of delta check has allowed for more precise application of this tool to achieve the desired clinical performance and operational set up. In this Chapter, we review the different pre-implementation considerations, the foundation concepts of delta check, the process of setting up key delta check parameters, performance verification and troubleshooting of a delta check flag.

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.

Have you caught that outlier yet? Evaluate the utility of repeat testing in nutritional and toxic element assessment

Repeat testing is routinely required by regulatory bodies as a measure to rule out contamination in trace elements and heavy metal analysis, especially when the initial analysis result is outside the reference interval. However, its clinical utilities in detecting analytical measurement outliers have not been systematically evaluated in different clinical testing scenarios. In this study, we present an extensive evaluation of repeat testing and its comparison with the initial analysis in four serum and plasma trace element assays performed by inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. We demonstrate that the patient population distributions for these elements differ significantly from the reference interval established by healthy individuals. Accordingly, a significant proportion of the patient specimens required repeat testing when using reference intervals as the threshold to perform repeat analysis. Crucially, comparison of the first analysis and repeat analysis revealed the limited utility of performing repeat measurements. The relative differences between the first and second measurements are consistent with the observed analytical imprecision of the assay and the likelihood of detecting actual analytical outliers is very low.

A New List for Choosing Wisely Canada From the "Hidden Profession" of Medical Laboratory Science

OBJECTIVES

Choosing Wisely Canada (CWC) publishes practices that may contribute to medical overuse and patient harm. Many practices concern laboratory testing, but the recommendations are often written for the test-ordering professionals. Our objective was to develop a list for CWC reflecting the scope of practice of nonpathologist medical laboratory professionals (MLPs).

METHODS

We used a national survey, a convention session, and a panel of MLPs from across Canada to generate content for the CWC list. We used a modified Delphi process to identify the most important items and scoping reviews to gather evidence supporting each item.

RESULTS

We identified 95 potential CWC list items. After 2 Delphi rounds, there was little movement in the top items. Scoping reviews revealed varying degrees of evidentiary support, which influenced the composition of the final list of 7 CWC items submitted. Three of the final recommendations address ways MLPs preserve the status quo with respect to overutilization of laboratory tests by other health care professionals. The remaining recommendations prompt MLPs to exert clinical judgment in specific scenarios, particularly where they can impact blood collection volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

This work brings a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the relationships among MLPs, patient safety, and resource waste.

Improving the laboratory result release process in the light of ISO 15189:2012 standard

The ISO 15189:2012 standard section 5.9.1 requires laboratories to review results before release, considering quality control, previous results, and clinical information, if any, and to issue documented procedures about it. While laboratory result reporting is generally regarded as part of the post-analytical phase, the result release process requires a general view of the total examination process. Reviewing test results may follow with troubleshooting and test repetition, including reanalyzing an individual sample or resampling. A systematic understanding of the result release may help laboratory professionals carry out appropriate test repetition and ensure the plausibility of laboratory results. In this paper, we addressed the crucial steps in the result release process, including evaluation of sample quality, critical result notification, result reporting, and recommendations for the management of the result release, considering quality control alerts, instrument flags, warning messages, and interference indexes. Error detection tools and plausibility checks mentioned in the present paper can support the daily practice of results release.

Critical Value Reporting at Egyptian Laboratories

OBJECTIVES

To examine critical value reporting policies and practices and to identify critical value ranges for selected common laboratory assays at inpatient division of laboratories of Alexandria hospitals.

METHODS

A cross-sectional descriptive study design was used. Subjects were from inpatient division of all laboratories of Alexandria hospitals (40 laboratories). Data were collected using a questionnaire composed of 4 sections. The first section explored hospital and laboratory characteristics. The second section assessed policies and procedures of critical value reporting. The third section explored the reporting process. The fourth section explored critical value ranges for selected common laboratory assays.

RESULTS

Written procedure for reporting of critical values was present in 77.5% of laboratories and a comprehensive list of critical values in 72.55%. For laboratories having a critical value list, the number of tests in the list ranged from 7 to 40. Three-fifths of laboratories had a policy for assessing the timeliness of reporting and 3 quarters stated that the laboratory policy requires feedback (60.0% and 75.0%, respectively). The hospital laboratory physician was responsible for critical value reporting followed by the laboratory technician (75.0% and 50.0%, respectively). The call is received mainly by nurses and physicians ordering the test (67.5% and 55.0%, respectively) and the channel of reporting is mainly the telephone or through sending test report to the ward (67.5% and 50.0%, respectively). Wireless technologies are used in reporting in only 10.0% of hospitals. The cutoff limits for reporting different assays showed considerable interlaboratory variation.

CONCLUSIONS

Critical value policies and practices showed interinstitutional variation with deficiencies in some reporting practices. Selection of critical assays for notification and setting the limits of notification exhibited wide variation as well.

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

Background & Objective:

Accurate and timely reporting of critical values is an important issue. There is some doubt whether repeat testing of critical values would offer any advantage over single testing or not. The aim of this study was evaluation of utility of routine repeat testing of critical values in our referral center and to compare probable variations in different working shifts.

Methods:

Clinical results of serum Potassium, Calcium, Blood Hemoglobin and Prothrombin Time (INR: International Normalized Ratio) were evaluated for three months.

Results:

Totally, 178, 96, 67 and 107 consecutive critical values for Potassium, Calcium, Hemoglobin and INR were reported, respectively. In potassium and Hemoglobin 5.05% and 1.17% of retest runs exceeded the accep1 tolerance limit. All of the calcium retest results were within the acceptable limit. For INR, 21/107 retest results did not meet the acceptable tolerance limit, nine still were critical. Afternoon working run performance was significantly better than the two others.

Conclusion:

Our observation suggests that routine repeat of hematology and chemistry critical test result is not necessary and may adversely affect patient safety measure. However, attention should be paid to results greater than analytical measurement range and all such results should be repeated before reporting.

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

BACKGROUND

Accurate and timely clinical laboratory critical values notification are crucial steps in supporting effective clinical decision making, thereby improving patient safety.

METHODS

A closed-loop laboratory critical value notification system was developed by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians, laboratorians, administrators, and information technology experts. All the laboratory critical values that occurred at Beijing Tsinghua Changgung Hospital (BTCH, Beijing, China) from 2015 to 2019 were analyzed and studied retrospectively.

RESULTS

The total number (ratio) of institutional laboratory critical values to all reported items at BTCH from 2015 to 2019 was 38 020/7 706 962 (0.49%). Percentage distribution points of critical value boundaries based on patients' test reports are 0.007% ~ 6.04% for low boundaries and 71.70% ~ 99.99% for high boundaries. After the intervention, the timely notification ratio, notification receipt ratio, and timely notification receipt ratio of critical values of ED, IPD, and total patients had increased, with a significant difference (P < .001). Five quality indicators, such as notification ratio, timely notification ratio, notification receipt ratio, timely notification receipt ratio, and clinician response ratio over a 5-year period, were 100%, 94%, 97%, 92%, and 99%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

We enhanced the effectiveness of clinical laboratory critical values initiative notification by implementing a closed-loop system and intervening. Clinical critical values and quality indicators should be analyzed and monitored to avoid adversely affecting patient care.

Post-analytical laboratory work: national recommendations from the Working Group for Post-analytics on behalf of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine

The post-analytical phase is the final phase of the total testing process and involves evaluation of laboratory test results; release of test results in a timely manner to appropriate individuals, particularly critical results; and modification, annotation or revocation of results as necessary to support clinical decision-making. Here we present a series of recommendations for post-analytical best practices, tailored to medical biochemistry laboratories in Croatia, which are intended to ensure alignment with national and international norms and guidelines. Implementation of the national recommendations is illustrated through several examples.

Assessment of a laboratory critical risk result notification protocol in a tertiary care hospital and their use in clinical decision making

Introduction

Communication of laboratory critical risk results is essential for patient safety, as it allows early decision making. Our aims were: 1) to retrospectively evaluate the current protocol for telephone notification of critical risk results in terms of rates, efficiency and recipient satisfaction, 2) to assess their use in clinical decision making and 3) to suggest alternative tools for a better assessment of notification protocols.

Materials and methods

The biochemical critical risk result notifications reported during 12 months by routine and STAT laboratories in a tertiary care hospital were reviewed. Total number of reports, time for the notification and main magnitudes with critical risk results were calculated. The use of notifications in clinical decision making was assessed by reviewing medical records. Satisfaction with the notification protocol was assessed through an online questionnaire to requesting physicians and nurses.

Results

Critical result was yielded by 0.1% of total laboratory tests. Median time for notification was 3.2 min (STAT) and 16.9 min (routine). The magnitudes with a greater number of critical results were glucose and potassium for routine analyses, and troponin, sodium for STAT. Most notifications were not reflected in the medical records. Overall mean satisfaction with the protocol was 4.2/5.

Conclusion

The results obtained indicate that the current protocol is appropriate. Nevertheless, there are some limitations that hamper the evaluation of the impact on clinical decision making. Alternatives were proposed for a proper and precise evaluation.

Determining the Need for Repeat Testing of Blood Ethanol Concentration: Evaluation of the Synchron Blood Ethyl Alcohol Assay Kit

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.

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

Introduction

The aim of the study was to investigate the state-of-the-art of the performance of critical value reporting and provide recommendations for laboratories setting critical value reporting time frames.

Materials and methods

The National Centre for Clinical Laboratories in China initiated a critical value reporting investigation in 2015. A questionnaire related to critical value reporting policy was sent to 1589 clinical laboratories in China online. The questionnaire consisted of a set of questions related to critical value reporting policy and a set of questions related to timeliness of critical value reporting. The survey data were collected between March and April 2015.

Results

A total survey response rate was 61.2%. The critical value unreported rate, unreported timely rate, and clinical unacknowledged rate of more than half of participants were all 0.0%. More than 75.0% of participants could report half of critical values to clinicians within 20 minutes and could report 90.0% of critical values to clinicians within 25 minutes (from result validation to result communication to the clinician). The median of target critical value reporting time was 15 minutes. “Reporting omission caused by laboratory staff”, “communications equipment failure to connect”, and “uncompleted application form without contact information of clinician” were the three major reasons for unreported critical value.

Conclusions

The majority of laboratories can report critical values to responsible clinical staff within 25 minutes. Thus, this value could be recommended as suitable critical value reporting time frame for biochemistry laboratories in China. However, careful monitoring of the complete reporting process and improvement of information systems should ensure further improvement of critical value reporting timeliness.

Repeating Critical Hematology and Coagulation Values Wastes Resources, Lengthens Turnaround Time, and Delays Clinical Action

OBJECTIVES

To determine the need and impact of repeating critical values in hematology and coagulation.

METHODS

We prospectively evaluated the need for repeating critical values. The cost of this practice was estimated using a workflow analysis. Retrospective chart review before and after removal of this process was performed to assess the clinical impact of removing this practice.

RESULTS

Over 95% of the repeated values remained critical and all but one of the repeats were within the expected analytical precision of the assays. The practice of repeating critical values delayed turnaround time for these results and wasted resources, most notably manpower. The delay associated with repeating hematology critical values resulted in delayed administration of blood product (RBC units).

CONCLUSIONS

Repeating critical hematology and coagulation results was found to be an unnecessary process that wasted laboratory resources and lengthened turnaround time, delaying clinical intervention.

Comparison of epidemiology and outcomes of arthroscopic rotator cuff repair for anterosuperior and posterosuperior rotator cuff tears

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence, epidemiology, and outcomes of anterosuperior (A group) rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and posterosuperior (P group) RCTs treated by arthroscopic rotator cuff repair (ARCR).

METHODS

A total of 67 A group patients and 14 P group patients were included in the study.

RESULTS

The prevalence of the A group (82.3%) was significantly higher than that of the P group (17.7%).

CONCLUSION

The outcomes in both groups were good, even though the A group had a higher rate of injury to the LHB than the P group.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control Study, treatment study.

Critical values in hematology of 862 institutions in China

INTRODUCTION

A national survey on critical values in hematology of China laboratories was conducted to determine the current practice and assess the quality indicators so as to obtain a quality improvement.

METHODS

Laboratories participating were asked to submit the general information, the practice of critical value reporting, and the status of timeliness of critical value reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 862 laboratories submitted the results. The majority of participants have included white blood cell count, blood platelet count, hemoglobin, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time in their critical value lists. Many sources are used for establishing a critical value policy, and some of the laboratories consult with clinicians. The unreported critical value rate, late critical value reporting rate, and clinically unacknowledged rate in China are relatively low, and the median of critical value reporting time is 8-9 minutes.

CONCLUSION

There exists a wide variety for critical value reporting in hematology in China. Laboratories should establish a policy of critical value reporting suited for their own situations and consult with clinicians to set critical value lists. Critical values are generally reported in a timely manner in China, but some measures should be taken to further improve the timeliness of critical value reporting.

Delta Check Practices and Outcomes: A Q-Probes Study Involving 49 Health Care Facilities and 6541 Delta Check Alerts

Context.—

Delta checks serve as a patient-based quality control tool to detect testing problems.

Objective.—

To evaluate delta check practices and outcomes.

Design.—

Q-Probes participants provided information about delta check policies and procedures. Information about investigations, problems, and corrective actions was prospectively collected for up to 100 testing episodes involving delta check alerts.

Results.—

Among 4505 testing episodes involving 6541 delta check alerts, the median frequencies of actions taken among 49 laboratories were clinical review, 38.0%; retest, 25.0%, or recheck, 20.2%; current specimen, nothing, 15.4%; analytical check, 5.0%; other; 2%; and retest or check previous specimen, 0%. Rates of any action taken by analyte ranged from 84 of 179 (46.9%) for glucose to 748 of 868 (86.2%) for hemoglobin and potassium. Among 4505 testing episodes, nontesting problems included physiologic causes (1472; 32.7%); treatment causes (1318; 19.2%); and transfusion causes (846; 9.9%). Testing problems included 77 interference (1.7%), 62 contamination (1.4%), 51 clotting (1.1%), 27 other (0.6%), 12 mislabeling (0.3%), and 5 analytical (0.1%). Testing problems by analyte ranged from 13 of 457 (2.8%) for blood urea nitrogen to 12 of 46 (26.1%) for mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration. Using more delta check analytes was associated with detecting more testing problems (P = .04). More delta check alerts per testing episode resulted in more actions taken (P = .001) and more problems identified (P &lt; .001). The most common outcome among 4500 testing episodes was reporting results without modifications or comments in 2512 (55.8%); results were not reported in 136 (3.0%).

Conclusions.—

Actions taken in response to delta check alerts varied widely, and most testing problems detected were preanalytical. Using a higher number of different analytes and evaluating previous specimens may improve delta check practices.

Standardization of haematology critical results management in adults: an International Council for Standardization in Haematology, ICSH, survey and recommendations

INTRODUCTION

These recommendations are intended to develop a consensus in the previously published papers as to which parameters and what values should be considered critical. A practical guide on the standardization of critical results management in haematology laboratories would be beneficial as part of good laboratory and clinical practice and for use by laboratory-accrediting agencies.

METHODS

A working group with members from Europe, America, Australasia and Asia was formed by International Council for Standardization in Haematology. A pattern of practice survey of 21 questions was distributed in 2014, and the data were collected electronically by Survey Monkey. The mode, or most commonly occurring value, was selected as the threshold for the upper and lower alert limits for critical results reporting.

RESULTS

A total of 666 laboratories submitted data to this study and, of these, 499 submitted complete responses. Full blood count critical results alert thresholds, morphology findings that trigger critical result notification, critical results alert list, notification process and maintenance of critical results management protocol are described. This international survey provided a snapshot of the current practice worldwide and has identified the existence of considerable heterogeneity of critical results management.

CONCLUSION

The recommendations in this study represent a consensus of good laboratory practice. They are intended to encourage the implementation of a standardized critical results management protocol in the laboratory.

Point-of-Care Glucose Critical Values: A Q-Probes Study Involving 50 Health Care Facilities and 2349 Critical Results

CONTEXT

Accuracy of blood glucose measurements in the critical value range is important for properly treating patients with severe hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance and reliability of point-of-care glucose (POCG) results in the critical value range among multiple facilities.

DESIGN

Q-Probes participants retrospectively collected data from up to 50 POCG results in their critical value range including patient location, type of testing operator, repeat glucose results, and caregiver notification. A repeat measurement at 10 minutes or less that was within 15 mg/dL of initial critical low or 20% of initial critical high value was considered a confirmed result.

RESULTS

Fifty facilities submitted data. Of 2349 critical POCG measurements, 1386 (59.0%) were retested. The median institutional retest rate was 56%. The retest rate was significantly higher when initial results were in the critical low range, P < .001. Although 30 of 50 facilities (60%) had written procedures for retesting, this was not associated with higher retest rates (P = .34). Among 35 facilities that routinely retested critical POCG results, 23 (65.7%) had criteria defined for interpreting results. The median institutional confirmation rate for retested specimens was 81.7%. The median institutional rate for caregiver notification of critical POCG results was 85.7%. Five hundred eighty-six of 1488 critical POCG notifications (39.4%) were done on patients in whom specimens were not retested.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that POCG results in the critical range may be unreliable because of testing errors that are not recognized from lack of confirmatory testing. In addition, notification of critical POCG results is not consistently performed.

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

Context

The anticoagulant warfarin has been identified as the second most frequent drug responsible for serious, disabling, and fatal adverse drug events in the United States, and its effect on blood coagulation is monitored by the laboratory test called international normalized ratio (INR).

Objective

To determine the presence of INR policies and procedures, INR practices, and completeness and timeliness of reporting critical INR results in participants' clinical laboratories.

Design

Participants reviewed their INR policies and procedure requirements, identified their practices by using a questionnaire, and studied completeness of documentation and timeliness of reporting critical value INR results for outpatients and emergency department patients.

Results

In 98 participating institutions, the 5 required policies and procedures were in place in 93% to 99% of clinical laboratories. Fifteen options for the allowable variations among duplicate results from different analyzers, 12 different timeliness goals for reporting critical values, and 18 unique critical value limits were used by participants. All required documentation elements were present in 94.8% of 192 reviewed INR validation reports. Critical value INR results were reported within the time frame established by the laboratory for 93.4% of 2604 results, but 1.0% of results were not reported. Although the median laboratories successfully communicated all critical results within their established time frames and had all the required validation elements based in their 2 most recent INR calculations, those participants at the lowest 10th percentile were successful in 80.0% and 85.7% of these requirements, respectively.

Conclusions

Significant opportunities exist for adherence to INR procedural requirements and for practice patterns and timeliness goals for INR critical results' reporting.

Croatian survey on critical results reporting

INTRODUCTION

Poor harmonization of critical results management is present in various laboratories and countries, including Croatia. We aimed to investigate procedures used in critical results reporting in Croatian medical biochemistry laboratories (MBLs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire, consisting of 24 questions/statements, related to critical results reporting procedures, was send to managers of MBLs in Croatia. Participants were asked to declare the frequency of performing procedures and degree of agreement with statements about critical values reporting using a Likert scale. Total score and mean scores for corresponding separate statements divided according to health care setting were calculated and compared.

RESULTS

Responses from 111 Croatian laboratories (48%) were analyzed. General practice laboratories (GPLs) more often re-analyzed the sample before reporting the critical result in comparison with the hospital laboratories (HLs) (score: 4.86 (4.75-4.96) vs. 4.49 (4.25-4.72); P=0.001) and more often reported the critical value exclusively to the responsible physician compared to HLs (4.46 (4.29-4.64) vs. 3.76 (3.48-4.03), P<0.001). High total score (4.69 (4.56-4.82)) was observed for selection of the critical results list issued by the Croatian Chamber of Medical Biochemistry (CCMB) indicating a high harmonization level for this aspect of critical result management. Low total scores were observed for the statements regarding data recording and documentation of critical result notification.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in practices about critical results reporting between HLs and GPLs were found. The homogeneity of least favorable responses detected for data recording and documentation of critical results notification reflects the lack of specific national recommendations.

Quality indicators for critical international normalized ratio measurements in a hemostatic laboratory

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed at reviewing the quality indicators for reporting critical international normalized ratio (INR) in a coagulation laboratory.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This is a retrospective study conducted at Aga Khan University Hospital, hemostatic laboratory from February 2010 till January 2011. Critical INR was defined as ≥5.0. All critical INRs were rechecked and results were communicated to the doctor or patient. Two quality indicators monitored were % of results communicated to the patient/doctor and % of results that remained critical after re-testing.

RESULTS

During the study period, a total of 59,980 INRs were reported. Of these 376 or 0.6% were critical. Successful communication of critical results to the doctor or patient was achieved in 275/376 (73.1%). Overall 353 or 94% (343 initial and 10 re-draw) samples had critical INR on repetition. Twenty five patients of the 240 warfarinized patients with critical INR had mild bleeding. No life threatening bleeding was observed in any patient.

CONCLUSION

We observed poor communication for notifying critical INR results during the study period. Routine repeat analysis of critical INR did not alter results in majority of samples. The study assisted in improving communication in subsequent years. Further work is needed to establish evidence based upper and lower cutoff of critical INR. Effect of replicate analysis on turnaround time and accuracy of results needs evaluation.

Quality control of automated cell counters

The hematology analyzers of today provide more reproducible analyses compared with those of a few decades ago, necessitating an evolution in hematology quality practices. The improved performance allows use of simple quality control rules. This improved performance also renders the repeat analysis of critical value specimens non value added. Some of the patient averaging techniques have become outmoded and need to be replaced by less complicated calculations but with truncation of predictable outlying populations. The ready availability of comparative peer quality control values helps to improve analyzer precision and accuracy, and simplifies instrument validation and calibration.

Twenty-five years of accomplishments of the College of American Pathologists Q-probes program for clinical pathology

CONTEXT

During the past 25 years, the College of American Pathologists' (CAP) Q-Probes program has been available as a subscription program to teach laboratorians how to improve the quality of clinical laboratory services.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accomplishments of the CAP Q-Probes program.

DESIGN

We reviewed Q-Probes participant information, study data and conclusions, author information, and program accomplishments.

RESULTS

During this time 117 Q-Probes clinical pathology studies were conducted by 54 authors and coauthors, 42,899 laboratories enrolled from 24 countries, 98 peer-reviewed publications occurred and were cited more than 1600 times, and the studies were featured 59 times in CAP Today. The most frequent studies (19) focused on turnaround times for results or products at specific locations (emergency department, operating room, inpatients, outpatients), specific diseases (acute myocardial infarction, urinary tract), availability for specific events such as morning rounds or surgery, a specific result (positive blood cultures), and a method on how to use data for improvement (stat test outliers). Percentile ranking of study participants with better performance provided benchmarks for each study with attributes statistically defined that influenced improved performance. Other programs, such as an ongoing quality improvement program (Q-Tracks), a laboratory competency assessment program, a pathologist certification program, and an ongoing physician practice evaluation program (Evalumetrics), have been developed from Q-Probes studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAP's Q-Probes program has made significant contributions to the medical literature and has developed a worldwide reputation for improving the quality of clinical pathology services worldwide.