A prospective tool for risk assessment of sendout testing.

Autor: Cole B; Department of Laboratories, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. Electronic address: bonnie.cole2@seattlechildrens.org., Dickerson JA; Department of Laboratories, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Lab Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States., Graber ML; RTI International, Chapel Hill, NC, SUNY Stony Brook School of Medicine, NY, United States., Fantz CR; Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, United States., Laposata M; Department of Pathology Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States., Henriksen K; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, United States., Astion ML; Department of Laboratories, Seattle Children's Hospital, Seattle, WA, United States; Department of Lab Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States., Epner P; Paul Epner LLC, Evanston, IL, United States.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry [Clin Chim Acta] 2014 Jul 01; Vol. 434, pp. 1-5. Date of Electronic Publication: 2014 Mar 29.
DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2014.03.028
Abstrakt: Objective: Errors associated with laboratory testing can cause significant patient harm. Sendout testing refers to tests sent by a primary lab to a reference lab when testing is unavailable at the primary lab. Sendout testing is particularly high risk for patient harm, due to many factors including increased hand-offs, manual processes, and complexity associated with rare, low-volume tests. No published prospective tools exist for sendout risk assessment.
Methods: A novel prospective tool was developed to assess risk of diagnostic errors involving laboratory sendout testing. This tool was successfully piloted at nine sites.
Results: Marked diversity was noted among survey respondents, particularly in the sections on quality metrics and utilization management. Of note, most sites had committees who managed rules for test ordering, but few places reported enforcing these rules. Only one site claimed to routinely measure the frequency clinicians failed to retrieve test results. An evaluation of the tool indicated that it was both useful and easy to use.
Conclusions: This tool could be used by other laboratories to identify the areas of highest risk to patients, which in turn may guide them in focusing their quality improvement efforts and resources.
(Copyright © 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: