PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 9091128

[Computer programs for clinical laboratories].

I S Balakhovskiĭ
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Computer programs for medical diagnostic laboratories which help save time needed for making files and improve their quality are to be differentiated from application programs for specific analyses. Any laboratory program consists of a nucleus and periphery. The nucleus includes the modules (which can be presented as individual files) carrying out the operations obligatory for any laboratory, such as registration of patients, making working lists, validation of results, making reports for clients and progress reports, archives, and quality systems. Modules ensuring the function of the program, namely, introduction of the names and parameters of methods, names of clients, staff personal, etc., are also referred to the nucleus. The periphery of a program consists of utilities or modules for certain analyzers, for data transfer to clients or to the central computer, and for sophisticated methods of data processing. A program meeting the medical requirements is to make use of only accredited methods of logical data processing, ensure the confidentiality and reliability of information, and keep records about the operations (who and when performed an operation and what operation was performed).

Explore related subjects

Clinical Laboratory TechniquesElectronic Data ProcessingMedical RecordsSoftwareJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I S Balakhovskiĭ. 1997. [Computer programs for clinical laboratories].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9091128/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed1998

Quality control in toxicological analysis.

The validity and effectiveness of quality control procedures are reviewed here in light of the principles of analytical toxicology, and of the professional responsibility involved in awareness of the profound influence which analytical results have in the fields of health and social security. Regardless of the methods used, laboratory work should aim essentially at achieving a very high degree of reliability. Factors contributing to the 'quality' of analytical results and methods used to check their reliability are discussed here. The technical background and organization of internal and external quality control procedures are presented, with particular reference to educational aspects, and to the ways in which computer and internet technologies may be exploited for further improvement of the effectiveness of these procedures.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques↗
PubMed1998

Do we know what inappropriate laboratory utilization is? A systematic review of laboratory clinical audits.

OBJECTIVE: Laboratory utilization has steadily increased, and some studies suggest inappropriate utilization. Therefore, we wished to assess studies that measure inappropriate laboratory use in light of methodological criteria. DESIGN: Systematic review of published studies. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, HEALTHSTAR, and EMBASE databases were searched from 1966 to September 1997 using a broad and inclusive strategy with no language restriction. In addition, the references of all retrieved studies and 3 textbooks on diagnostic testing were hand-searched. STUDY SELECTION: All studies that provided and applied criteria for inappropriate laboratory use. DATA EXTRACTION: Studies were categorized based on whether the criteria were implicit (objective criteria for inappropriate utilization not provided or very broad) or explicit. Guidelines for evaluation were applied to each study by a single reviewer. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-four eligible studies were identified. Eleven studies used implicit criteria for inappropriate laboratory utilization and contained small numbers of patients or physicians. Most did not adequately assess the reliability of the implicit criteria. Thirty-three studies used explicit criteria based on the appropriateness of test choice, frequency, and timing, as well as the probability of a positive result. There were large variations in the estimates of inappropriate laboratory use (4.5%-95%). Evidence supporting the explicit criteria was frequently weak by the standards suggested for therapeutic maneuvers, but was nonetheless compelling based on principles of physiology, pharmacology, and probability. CONCLUSIONS: Many studies identify inappropriate laboratory use based on implicit or explicit criteria that do not meet methodological standards suggested for audits of therapeutic maneuvers. Researchers should develop alternative evidentiary standards for measuring inappropriateness of laboratory test use.

Clinical Laboratory Techniques↗