Provision of interpretative comments on biochemical report forms

Marshall, William; Challand, G S

doi:10.1258/0004563001900066

Cited by 35 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There is an ongoing debate as to whether such result should be reported with a comment, corrected or withheld by the laboratory (18). Unfortunately, there is little evidence to support interpretation of laboratory test results and interpretative comments accompanying laboratory reports as a contribution to the outcome of the patient and the quality of the patient care (19,20). Large well-designed studies assessing the outcome of the patient are needed to define the most appropriate actions to be taken in these instances.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of visual vs. automated detection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed specimens: can we rely on a human eye?

Šimundić

Nikolac

Ivankovic

et al. 2009

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Results from hemolyzed, icteric, and lipemic samples may be inaccurate and can lead to medical errors. These preanalytical interferences may be detected using visual or automated assessment. Visual inspection is time consuming, highly subjective and not standardized. Our aim was to assess the comparability of automated spectrophotometric detection and visual inspection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed samples. Methods: This study was performed on 1727 routine biochemistry serum samples. Automated detection was performed using the Olympus AU2700 analyzer. We assessed: 1) comparability of visual and automated detection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed samples, 2) precision of automated detection, and 3) inter-observer variability for visual inspection. Results: Weighted k coefficients for comparability of visual and automated detection were: 0.555, 0.529 and 0.638, for lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed samples, respectively. The precision for automated detection was high for all interferences, with the exception of samples being only slightly lipemic. The best overall agreement between observers was present in assessing lipemia (mean weighted ks0.698), whereas the lowest degree of agreement was observed in assessing icterus (mean weighted ks0.476). Conclusions: Visual inspection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed samples is highly unreliable and should be replaced by automated systems that report serum indices. Clin Chem Lab Med 2009;47:1361-5.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of visual vs. automated detection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed specimens: can we rely on a human eye?

Šimundić

Nikolac

Ivankovic

et al. 2009

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Training in pathology consultation has to be undertaken in a formal manner for this activity to be performed effectively (7). There is now some acceptance in the clinical chemistry profession for the need and ability to assess the quality of interpretative services offered by the clinical chemistry laboratory (6,8,9). We describe a study of interpretative commenting ability among laboratory personnel in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of interpretative commenting on common clinical chemistry results in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa

Vasikaran¹,

Lai²,

Sethi

et al. 2009

Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Interpretative commenting is an important activity of the clinical diagnostic laboratory. We describe a study of interpretative commenting abilities among senior laboratory professionals in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. Methods: Five sets of laboratory results reflecting common and important problems encountered in clinical chemistry were distributed at 4-weekly intervals to 31 registered participants from countries in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. Participants were asked to attach an interpretative comment to the results assuming that the requesting doctor had asked for an interpretation of the result. Results: Twelve pathologists and 19 scientists from seven countries registered to participate and the overall reply rate was ;50% for the five cases. The quality of the comments returned by participants was diverse and some reflected incorrect or misleading interpretation and advice. Conclusions: While interpretative commenting is an important laboratory activity, the results of this study suggest that there is room for improvement in the quality of interpretative comments offered by senior laboratory professionals, even for commonly reported results relating to most prevalent and important public health conditions. Interpretative commenting should be formally taught during training of patho-

show abstract

“…The need for such formal assessment has been recognized by Clinical Pathology Accreditation Limited in the United Kingdom through their funding of a national external quality assessment scheme (NEQAS) 7 for interpretative comments in clinical chemistry. There is now some degree of acceptance of quality assurance (QA) of interpretative commenting within the clinical biochemistry profession (4,5 ). Recognizing these developments, the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia/Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (RCPA-AACB) Chemical Pathology Group of RCPA Quality Assurance Programs (QAP) Pty Ltd initiated a quality assessment program in patient report commenting, which was piloted in 2000.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality Assessment of Interpretative Commenting in Clinical Chemistry

Lim¹,

Sikaris

Gill

et al. 2004

Clinical Chemistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A case summary/rationale was also returned to participants. Results: There was considerable diversity in the range of interpretative comments received for each case report. Although the majority of comments received were felt to be acceptable by the expert panel, some comments were felt to be inappropriate, misleading, or in a few instances, dangerous. Conclusion: The golden rule in medicine is "do no harm". Although there is no objective evidence that interpretive comments help to improve patient out-

show abstract

Provision of interpretative comments on biochemical report forms

Cited by 35 publications

References 4 publications

Comparison of visual vs. automated detection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed specimens: can we rely on a human eye?

Comparison of visual vs. automated detection of lipemic, icteric and hemolyzed specimens: can we rely on a human eye?

Quality of interpretative commenting on common clinical chemistry results in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa

Quality Assessment of Interpretative Commenting in Clinical Chemistry

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About