Published in

De Gruyter, Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, 10(45), 2007

DOI: 10.1515/cclm.2007.288

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

National survey on critical values reporting in a cohort of Italian laboratories

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Red circle
Preprint: archiving forbidden
Red circle
Postprint: archiving forbidden
Orange circle
Published version: archiving restricted
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Background: Critical values' reporting is an essential requisite for clinical laboratories. Local policies were investigated within an indicative cohort of Italian laboratories to monitor the situation and establish a performance benchmark. Methods: A five-point questionnaire was administered to 150 laboratory specialists attending the SIMEL (Italian Society of Laboratory Medicine) National Meeting in June 2006. Results: A total of 107 questionnaires (71.3%) were returned with a 100% individual question response rate. Only 55% of the participants acknowledge critical values reporting as an essential practice, 80% admit that a comprehensive list of critical values is unavailable in the laboratory and 4% do not promptly communicate critical values. The list of critical values is variable among laboratories, ranging from none to 20 analytes included. The requesting physician or his/her office staff receives the great majority (97%) of notifications by telephone for outpatients. Critical values for inpatients are notified directly by telephone (81%) and in a minority of cases by either fax or computer (19%). In the inpatient setting, the information is notified to physicians (77%), nurses (15%) or other health-care staff in the clinic (8%). It was found that 49% of the participants adopt a standard (digital or written) policy for routine recording of notifications; in 32% of the cases the registration is left to individual attitudes, whereas in 20% of the cases the notification is not recorded. No laboratory has yet adopted a read-back verification of the complete test result by the person receiving the information. Conclusions: The importance of critical value reporting is still poorly recognized in Italy and uniform or internationally accredited practices for communication and recording are not currently implemented.