Delays in reporting critical values from clinical laboratories to responsible healthcare staff

Oğuzhan Özcan 1 , Gökhan Çakırca 2 , Sedat Motor 2  and Zafer Yönden 2
  • 1 Faculty of Medicine, Mustafa Kemal University, Medical Biochemistry, Hatay 31200, Turkey
  • 2 Faculty of Medicine, Mustafa Kemal University, Medical Biochemistry, Hatay, Turkey
Oğuzhan Özcan, Gökhan Çakırca, Sedat Motor and Zafer Yönden

Abstract

Objective:

We aimed to investigate the frequency of delayed notifications and probable causes of delays for critical value notification in clinical laboratory of university hospital.

Materials and methods:

All data was obtained from critical value reporting forms and laboratory information system. The frequency and location of critical and delayed results, latencies throughout a working day and the professional status who received the critical callbacks were shown as percentages.

Results:

A total of 2018 (1.02%) critical values were reported and 13.1% of them were delayed notifications. Most of them were observed in laboratory tests ordered from patients of service and polyclinics compared to ICU and emergency department (26.7%, 26%, 6.2% and 4.9%, respectively, p<0.01). Delayed notifications were significantly higher for biochemical parameters (19.7%, p<0.001) and observed particularly in morning hours (06:00 a.m.–10:00 a.m.), lunch break time (12:00–14:00) and end of the working day (16:00–18:00). Latencies of mild-delayed reporting were 18.5±4.4 min for 62.8% and advanced-delayed reporting were 47.1±11.3 min for 37.2% of total delayed notifications. Most of the critical results were reported to the health care staff other than physician (55.6%).

Conclusion:

Laboratory professionals should work in collaboration with responsible clinician and healthcare staff in critical value reporting process.

  • 1.

    Lundberg G. When to panic over an abnormal value. Med Lab Obs 1972;4:47–54.

  • 2.

    Lundberg GD. Critical (panic) value notification: an established laboratory practice policy (parameter). J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:709.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 3.

    Kost GJ. Critical limits for urgent clinician notification at US medical centers. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:704–7.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 4.

    Kost GJ. Critical limits for emergency clinician notification at United States children’s hospitals. Pediatrics 1991;88:597–603.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 5.

    Tillman J, Barth JH, ACB National Audit Group. A survey of laboratory ‘critical (alert) limits’ in the UK. Ann Clin Biochem 2003;40:181–4.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 6.

    Kuperman GJ, Teich JM, Tanasijevic MJ, Ma’Luf N, Rittenberg E, Jha A, et al. Improving response to critical laboratory results with automation: results of a randomised controlled trial. J Am Med Inform Assoc 1999;6:512–22.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 7.

    Piva E, Sciacovelli L, Zaninotto M, Laposata M, Plebani M. Evaluation of effectiveness of a computerized notification system for reporting critical values. Am J Clin Pathol 2009;131:432–41.

    • Crossref
    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 8.

    Dighe AS, Rao A, Coakley AB, Lewandrowski KB. Analysis Of laboratory critical value reporting at a large academic medical center. Am J Clin Pathol 2006;125:758–64.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 9.

    Onyenekwu CP, Hudson CL, Zemlin AE, Erasmus RT. The impact of repeat-testing of common chemistry analytes at critical concentrations. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:1739–45.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 10.

    Sirota RL. The Institute of Medicine’s report on medical error: implications for pathology. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2000;124:1674–8.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 11.

    Agarwal R, Chhillar N, Tripathi CB. Study of variables affecting critical value notification in a laboratory catering to tertiary care hospital. Indian J Clin Biochem 2015;30:89–93.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
  • 12.

    Valenstein PN, Wagar EA, Stankovic AK, Walsh MK, Schneider F. Notification of critical results: a College of American Pathologists Q-Probes study of 121 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2008;132:1862–7.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 13.

    Wagar EA, Stankovic AK, Wilkinson DS, Walsh M, Souers RH. Assessment monitoring of laboratory critical values: a College of American Pathologists Q-Tracks study of 180 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2007;131:44–9.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 14.

    Carroll AE, Saluja S, Tarczy-Hornoch P. Development of a personal digital assistant (PDA) based client/server NICU patient data and charting system. Proc Am Med Inform Assoc Symp 2001;100–4.

  • 15.

    Howanitz PJ, Steindel SJ, Heard NV. Laboratory critical values policies and procedures a college of american pathologists Q-probes study in 623 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:663–9.

    • PubMed
    • Export Citation
  • 16.

    The Joint Commission’s Annual Report 2015. America’s Hospitals: Improving Quality and Safety. Available at: https://www.jointcommission.org/assets/1/18/TJC_Annual_Report_2015_EMBARGOED_11_9_15.pdf. (Last accessed: August 29 2015).

  • 17.

    Piva E, Pelloso M, Penello L, Plebani M. Laboratory critical values: Automated notifi cation supports effective clinical decision making. Clin Biochem 2014;47:1163–8.

    • Crossref
    • Export Citation
Purchase article
Get instant unlimited access to the article.
$42.00
Log in
Already have access? Please log in.


or
Log in with your institution

Journal + Issues

Turkish Journal of Biochemistry (TJB), official journal of Turkish Biochemical Society, is issued electronically every 2 months. The main aim of the journal is to support the research and publishing culture by ensuring that every published manuscript has an added value and thus providing international acceptance of the “readability” of the manuscripts published in the journal.

Search