PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 16499809

Laboratory errors as judged by test request slips and test reports.

Shameem Siddiqui
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate common laboratory transcription errors made in requisition forms and rate of report failure in test result reports. DESIGN: Descriptive study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Jinnah Postgraduate Medical Center (JPMC) from February 01, till February 28, 2002. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred and eight patient s records were collected randomly from 24 different departments of the hospital, during the month of February 2002. Each record was scrutinized for requisition slips and test reports. Tabulation of the content matter of all requisition slips and the test reports was done on the spread sheet, for the transcription errors; and compared with the minimum standards of requisition forms, as laid down by clinical laboratory improvement amendments; 1988 (CLIA 88). Request forms on which urgent test/any comment was given, were tabulated separately. Differences in the number of tests ordered and actually performed were also tabulated. Percentage of error was calculated. RESULTS: Four hundred and sixty-nine test request forms, requesting 1112 tests, were analyzed. None of them had pre-formatted laboratory forms. They were written on torn file papers, Out-patient department (OPD) slips and plain papers. The transcription errors included physician s identification errors (469/469 or 100%), patient s name, age, sex and unique identifier errors (0, 94, 95 and 81%) respectively, error in patients data aiding diagnosis (100%) and report failure error (37%). The requesting pattern of the laboratory tests ordered by clinicians revealed inclination towards panel-test ordering. The results of requested tests were available in 63% requested tests, and not available in 37% tests. No reason for rejection of the specimen was found on feed-back/report. Further analysis of un-reported results revealed that the emergency tests of electrolytes and sugar were the most affected ones, followed by PT/APTT, ESR and urine analysis. Tests for serum electrolytes done in elective and emergency setup, showed that out of 152 test requests for electrolytes, 124 requests were sent in elective and 28 in emergency setup. There was report failure in 84 cases (67.7%) in former and 13 cases (46.4%) in the latter. CONCLUSION: A good insight on error-prone steps in the laboratory process is essential to achieve error reduction; hence, in addition to maintaining quality standards within laboratory, it is imperative to go outside the laboratory to identify the common errors made in laboratory process and to reorganize the activity of the wards.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Laboratory Information SystemsClinical Laboratory TechniquesDiagnostic ErrorsFollow-Up StudiesHumansQuality Assurance, Health CareComparative StudyJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Shameem Siddiqui. 2006. Laboratory errors as judged by test request slips and test reports.. https://doi.org/2.2006/jcpsp.136138

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2007

Enhancement of claims data to improve risk adjustment of hospital mortality.

CONTEXT: Comparisons of risk-adjusted hospital performance often are important components of public reports, pay-for-performance programs, and quality improvement initiatives. Risk-adjustment equations used in these analyses must contain sufficient clinical detail to ensure accurate measurements of hospital quality. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect on risk-adjusted hospital mortality rates of adding present on admission codes and numerical laboratory data to administrative claims data. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Comparison of risk-adjustment equations for inpatient mortality from July 2000 through June 2003 derived by sequentially adding increasingly difficult-to-obtain clinical data to an administrative database of 188 Pennsylvania hospitals. Patients were hospitalized for acute myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, cerebrovascular accident, gastrointestinal tract hemorrhage, or pneumonia or underwent an abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, coronary artery bypass graft surgery, or craniotomy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: C statistics as a measure of the discriminatory power of alternative risk-adjustment models (administrative, present on admission, laboratory, and clinical for each of the 5 conditions and 3 procedures). RESULTS: The mean (SD) c statistic for the administrative model was 0.79 (0.02). Adding present on admission codes and numerical laboratory data collected at the time of admission resulted in substantially improved risk-adjustment equations (mean [SD] c statistic of 0.84 [0.01] and 0.86 [0.01], respectively). Modest additional improvements were obtained by adding more complex and expensive to collect clinical data such as vital signs, blood culture results, key clinical findings, and composite scores abstracted from patients' medical records (mean [SD] c statistic of 0.88 [0.01]). CONCLUSIONS: This study supports the value of adding present on admission codes and numerical laboratory values to administrative databases. Secondary abstraction of difficult-to-obtain key clinical findings adds little to the predictive power of risk-adjustment equations.

Clinical Laboratory Information Systems↗
PubMed2006

Definition of an XML markup language for clinical laboratory procedures and comparison with generic XML markup.

BACKGROUND: Clinical laboratory procedure manuals are typically maintained as word processor files and are inefficient to store and search, require substantial effort for review and updating, and integrate poorly with other laboratory information. Electronic document management systems could improve procedure management and utility. As a first step toward building such systems, we have developed a prototype electronic format for laboratory procedures using Extensible Markup Language (XML). METHODS: Representative laboratory procedures were analyzed to identify document structure and data elements. This information was used to create a markup vocabulary, CLP-ML, expressed as an XML Document Type Definition (DTD). To determine whether this markup provided advantages over generic markup, we compared procedures structured with CLP-ML or with the vocabulary of the Health Level Seven, Inc. (HL7) Clinical Document Architecture (CDA) narrative block. RESULTS: CLP-ML includes 124 XML tags and supports a variety of procedure types across different laboratory sections. When compared with a general-purpose markup vocabulary (CDA narrative block), CLP-ML documents were easier to edit and read, less complex structurally, and simpler to traverse for searching and retrieval. CONCLUSION: In combination with appropriate software, CLP-ML is designed to support electronic authoring, reviewing, distributing, and searching of clinical laboratory procedures from a central repository, decreasing procedure maintenance effort and increasing the utility of procedure information. A standard electronic procedure format could also allow laboratories and vendors to share procedures and procedure layouts, minimizing duplicative word processor editing. Our results suggest that laboratory-specific markup such as CLP-ML will provide greater benefit for such systems than generic markup.

Clinical Laboratory Information Systems↗