Laboratory Critical Values Should Support Effective Clinical Decision Making

Harmonizing the post-analytical phase: focus on the laboratory report

The final, post-analytical, phase of laboratory testing is increasingly recognized as a fundamental step in maximizing quality and effectiveness of laboratory information. There is a need to close the loop of the total testing cycle by improving upon the laboratory report, and its notification to users. The harmonization of the post-analytical phase is somewhat complicated, mainly because it calls for communication that involves parties speaking different languages, including laboratorians, physicians, information technology specialists, and patients. Recently, increasing interest has been expressed in integrated diagnostics, defined as convergence of imaging, pathology, and laboratory tests with advanced information technology (IT). In particular, a common laboratory, radiology and pathology diagnostic reporting system that integrates text, sentinel images and molecular diagnostic data to an integrated, coherent interpretation enhances management decisions and improves quality of care.

Clinician's opinion about critical risk results proposed by the Croatian Chamber of Medical Biochemists: a survey in one Croatian tertiary hospital

Introduction

It has been recommended that each laboratory modify their critical result reporting practices to reflect the clinical needs of their patient populations. The aim of this survey was to assess how well critical laboratory values defined by the Croatian Chamber of Medical Biochemists (CCMB) correspond to the needs of the physicians at University hospital “Sveti Duh” (Zagreb, Croatia).

Materials and methods

We conducted a survey among physicians from five departments in our hospital. Physicians were asked general questions about critical risk results (if and how they want to be informed). A list of critical risk results defined by the CCMB was offered and physicians were asked to revise the existing critical risk results and suggest adding new parameters. Obtained data were presented as numbers. Where the number of observations was low, ratios were used.

Results

Survey response rate was 43% (52/121). Majority (48/52) wants to be informed of critical risk results, either personally (31/48) or through a colleague (32/48). They prefer to be informed about critical risk results of prothrombin time, platelet count, haemoglobin, glucose, creatinine, sodium and potassium. Revisions in the CCMB critical risk result list are proposed by 13 out of 48 physicians. Neonatologists approved the CCMB’s list.

Conclusions

Although most critical risk results defined by the CCMB correspond well to the needs of the physicians in our hospital, some revisions are necessary to meet the particular needs of individual departments. Communication of critical risk results to those who have requested laboratory testing is highly appreciated practice.