What’s in a Name? Comparative Analysis of Laboratory Test Naming Guidelines as Applied to Common Confusing Test Names

Introduction/Objective

Laboratory test names frequently do not enable easy understandability or promote correct test utilization, which leads to difficulty for providers in finding the correct test and results in unnecessary cost and medical errors. Laboratory test names are also largely unstandardized and are not named by a consistent set of conventions. To address these issues, the TRUU-Lab (Test Renaming for Understanding & Utilization) initiative aims to generate a consensus test naming guideline for better human understandability of laboratory test names. These studies address the first aim of the TRUU-Lab initiative: to identify root causes and challenges in understanding and using laboratory test names.

Methods

We conducted survey studies to capture the most problematic laboratory test names, then performed analysis of these names to identify aspects of these names that led to confusion among providers. A subset of these test names were used to evaluate five existing laboratory test naming guidelines (LOINC, ONC TigerTeam, Pan- Canadian iEHR Viewer Name, Standards for Pathology Informatics (Australia), and ARUP Laboratories internal style guides) for their ability to produce understandable test names.

Results

274 survey responses yielded ~100 unique laboratory tests cited as confusing, and highlighted substantial diversity both in the names of these tests between institutions and in respondent opinion on the best alternative names. The top 10 most commonly-cited tests yielded ≥ 3 unique names, and the top 2 tests (Vitamin D and anti- factor Xa) yielded ≥ 10 unique names. Post-survey analysis identified eight characteristics associated with poor understandability of a test name, including ambiguity, abbreviations, homophones, multiple indications for a single test, proprietary names, synonyms, truncation, and “panels” where components are obfuscated. Existing guidelines produced highly variable names given the same prompt, and varied in their ability to avoid pitfalls associated with poor understandability.

Conclusion

These studies highlight aspects of existing laboratory test names that lead to confusion among ordering providers, and identify the inability of existing laboratory test naming practices to adequately address these issues. Efforts are ongoing within TRUU-Lab to use these results to inform novel laboratory test naming guidelines to promote universal human understandability.

The Impact of COVID-19 Lockdown on Adults with Major Depressive Disorder from Catalonia: A Decentralized Longitudinal Study

The present study analyzes the effects of each containment phase of the first COVID-19 wave on depression levels in a cohort of 121 adults with a history of major depressive disorder (MDD) from Catalonia recruited from 1 November 2019, to 16 October 2020. This analysis is part of the Remote Assessment of Disease and Relapse-MDD (RADAR-MDD) study. Depression was evaluated with the Patient Health Questionnaire-8 (PHQ-8), and anxiety was evaluated with the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Depression's levels were explored across the phases (pre-lockdown, lockdown, and four post-lockdown phases) according to the restrictions of Spanish/Catalan governments. Then, a mixed model was fitted to estimate how depression varied over the phases. A significant rise in depression severity was found during the lockdown and phase 0 (early post-lockdown), compared with the pre-lockdown. Those with low pre-lockdown depression experienced an increase in depression severity during the "new normality", while those with high pre-lockdown depression decreased compared with the pre-lockdown. These findings suggest that COVID-19 restrictions affected the depression level depending on their pre-lockdown depression severity. Individuals with low levels of depression are more reactive to external stimuli than those with more severe depression, so the lockdown may have worse detrimental effects on them.