PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 9306714

[Coding for clinical laboratory information].

Abstract

The field of clinical laboratory tests is facing an increase in the number of test items as well as a corresponding diversification due to the demands of medical institutions as well as improvements in analytical techniques. To respond to this situation, medical institutions have been promoting systematization of their testing procedures; information exchange among the institutions has likewise expanded with the use of media such as on-line systems and internet. Standardization of interfaces has been proposed to secure a common framework compatible with different types of information. Some embodiments in this country includes; (1) Interface Standards on Clinical Laboratory Information For information exchange, the format and reporting comments used in the media systems were standardized under the sponsorship of The Medical Information System Development Center, with a publication issued on 1993. (2) Standardization of Laboratory Test Code Standardization of codes for information exchange has been established under the sponsorship of The Japan Society of Clinical Pathology (Laboratory Test Coding Committee), through the systematization of laboratory test code used in media systems. A publication entitled "Classification & Coding for Clinical Laboratory Tests (8th edition in 1992, 9th edition in 1994 and supplement in 1996)" has been issued. The system for "Classification & Coding for Clinical Laboratory Tests" is divided into 5 components; (1) analyte code, (2) identification code, (3) specimen code, (4) methodology code, and (5) data classification code. The Laboratory test codes are precisely classified by "(1) analyte code", and then are identified by combination of additional codes such as specimen and methodology codes. In this year, we are making a new easily-used-codes composed of 5 Arabic figures.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I Sakurabayashi. 1997. [Coding for clinical laboratory information].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9306714/

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Statewide system of electronic notifiable disease reporting from clinical laboratories: comparing automated reporting with conventional methods.

CONTEXT: Notifiable disease surveillance is essential to rapidly identify and respond to outbreaks so that further illness can be prevented. Automating reports from clinical laboratories has been proposed to reduce underreporting and delays. OBJECTIVE: To compare the timeliness and completeness of a prototypal electronic reporting system with that of conventional laboratory reporting. DESIGN: Laboratory-based reports for 5 conditions received at a state health department between July 1 and December 31, 1998, were reviewed. Completeness of coverage for each reporting system was estimated using capture-recapture methods. SETTING: Three statewide private clinical laboratories in Hawaii. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The number and date of reports received, by reporting system, laboratory, and pathogen; completeness of data fields. RESULTS: A total of 357 unique reports of illness were identified; 201 (56%) were received solely through the automated electronic system, 32 (9%) through the conventional system only, and 124 (35%) through both. Thus, electronic reporting resulted in a 2.3-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-2.6) increase in reports. Electronic reports arrived an average of 3.8 (95% CI, 2.6-5.0) days earlier than conventional reports. Of 21 data fields common to paper and electronic formats, electronic reports were significantly more likely to be complete for 12 and for 1 field with the conventional system. The estimated completeness of coverage for electronic reporting was 80% (95% CI, 75%-85%) [corrected] compared with 38% (95% CI, 36%-41%) [corrected] for the conventional system. CONCLUSIONS: In this evaluation, electronic reporting more than doubled the total number of laboratory-based reports received. On average, the electronic reports were more timely and more complete, suggesting that electronic reporting may ultimately facilitate more rapid and comprehensive institution of disease control measures.

Clinical Laboratory Information Systems