Critical values in Hematology

Mcfarlane, Aidan; Aslan, Bengisu; Raby, Anne; Bourner, G.; Padmore, Ruth

doi:10.1111/ijlh.12226

Cited by 18 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Among the laboratories participating in the survey, only 49% used published literature to establishing the CRAL. This may be due to the wide ranges of critical results alert thresholds in the published literature . Whilst our data were difficult to analyse, the threshold values derived and the range of results reported are consistent with those from other surveys.…”

Section: Discussion and Recommendationssupporting

confidence: 85%

“…About 77.6% of participating laboratories in this survey have a read-back policy. Read-back policy rates in previous surveys were 90% in Ontario [6], 91% in USA [42], 81% in Thailand [27], 62% in Italy [28] and 46% in Australia [31]. This requirement is in the CAP [9] check list and is also the recommendation from some regional/national bodies [13,14,17].…”

Section: Recommendations On Critical Results and The Alert Listmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Regional/national recommendations have been made in an attempt to provide guidance for the critical results management [13][14][15][16][17][18][19]. Despite this, previous regional/national surveys have identified large variation in the practice of critical results management [6,[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. This international survey provided a snapshot of the current practice worldwide and has identified the existence of considerable heterogeneity of critical results management.…”

Section: Discussion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Keng

Salle

Bourner³

et al. 2016

Int J Lab Hematology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Recommendationssupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Recommendations On Critical Results and The Alert Listmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussion and Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Keng

Salle

Bourner³

et al. 2016

Int J Lab Hematology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Decreased Hb has been previously reported to be associated with upper GI bleeding (15). However, a limitation with regard to evaluation of Hb is that results differ between first-time and repeated sampling (16). Hb below the normal range indicates upper GI bleeding.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Change ratio of hemoglobin has predictive value for upper gastrointestinal bleeding

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The present study aimed to identify novel predictors of upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding by assessing change ratios of blood test variables. Records of 1,023 patients (431 men and 592 women) who underwent endoscopy between October 2014 and September 2015 at the National Hospital Organization Shimoshizu Hospital (Yotsukaido, Japan) were retrospectively analyzed. Patients whose blood test variables for the time-point of endoscopy and three months previously were available were enrolled and subsequently categorized into a group with and another one without upper GI bleeding (n=32 and 84, respectively), and the respective change ratios were calculated for each group. One-way analysis of variance revealed that in patients with upper GI bleeding, change ratios of white blood cell count and alkaline phosphatase were significantly higher than those in patients without, while change ratios of hemoglobin (Hb), total protein and albumin were significantly reduced. Logistic regression analysis demonstrated that the change ratio of Hb was significantly correlated with upper GI bleeding. Receiver-operator characteristic analysis revealed that an 18.7% reduction of Hb was the threshold value for the prediction of upper GI bleeding. In conclusion, the present study revealed that a ≥18.7% reduction in Hb over three months has predictive value for upper GI bleeding.

show abstract

“…It is widely known that critical value reporting is a determinant of patient outcome . It remains the responsibility of each laboratory to establish critical value lists for the results that must be reported when they fall outside of defined limit, and laboratories are responsible for the notification of critical results to clinicians immediately so that clinical interventions can be made in an appropriate time frame…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%