PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 6789688

A method for determining costs associated with laboratory error.

Abstract

A study directed toward developing a method for determining costs associated with laboratory error was developed, relying on panels of physicians to rank frequency of performance and impact of error of various laboratory tests. Cost estimates of error impact were then developed, using cost of error to patient as the basis. Findings indicate that economic costs of laboratory error differ with the test. Probable costs per error can be used to identify tests with the highest costs to patients. These cost-per-error-data, when combined with test volume data and error rates by test, will help pinpoint the tests that should receive priority effort in a laboratory improvement program. The method developed could serve as one basis for developing an effective laboratory improvement program; it could also be used for budget justification and ultimately for program evaluation.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

E L Cavenaugh. 1981. A method for determining costs associated with laboratory error.. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.71.8.831

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Utility of follow-up tests for detecting recurrent disease in patients with malignant melanomas.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effectiveness of follow-up tests for signaling recurrences in patients with intermediate- and high-risk malignant melanomas treated with curative intention. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: North Central Cancer Treatment Group. PATIENTS: A total of 261 patients with resected local (> or = 1.69 mm) and regional nodal malignant melanomas who were enrolled in a single prospective adjuvant trial were studied. All patients were scheduled to be followed up monthly for 2 months, then every 2 months for the first year, every 4 months the second year, every 6 months the next 3 years, and annually thereafter, with each visit consisting of a history, physical examination, complete blood cell count, blood chemistry panel, and a chest x-ray. RESULTS: Of the 145 evaluable patients who developed recurrent melanomas, 99 patients (68%) developed symptoms that signaled the diagnosis of recurrent disease. Physical examination of asymptomatic patients led to the diagnosis of recurrent disease in 37 patients (26%). The other nine patients (6%) with recurrent disease had abnormal chest x-rays. Laboratory results were never a sole indicator of recurrent disease. CONCLUSION: The majority of recurrences following resection of primary melanomas are discovered by history and/or physical examination despite the frequent use of other follow-up tests. The present data indicate that routine blood analyses and chest x-rays have limited value in the postoperative follow-up of patients with resected intermediate- and high-risk melanomas.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques