{"title":"Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Critical Result Notification Protocol of Biochemistry Laboratory at a Tertiary Care Hospital","authors":"Silpa Thota, Aparna R. Bitla","doi":"10.1055/s-0043-1775573","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background Critical value reporting is an essential aspect of laboratory medicine, ensuring prompt communication of life-threatening results to clinicians for immediate action. Existing guidelines emphasize the importance of timely notification, but protocols may vary. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the protocol for reporting critical results in the biochemistry laboratory of a tertiary care hospital and proposed alternative protocols for improvement. Materials and Methods Data were collected over a 6-month period, including the total number of investigations, critical values detected, parameters analyzed, and clinical departments involved. Quality indicators such as turnaround time (TAT), unsuccessful reporting rates, and clinical actions taken were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel. Results Out of 390,000 investigations, 0.5% had critical values. Serum potassium (55.9%) had the highest frequency of critical values, followed by sodium, calcium, and glucose. The emergency department received the highest number of critical alerts. The success rate of critical result reporting within 1 hour was 86.8%, while unsuccessful reporting accounted for 10.7%. The causes of unsuccessful reporting included outpatient requests and delayed intimation due to patient transfers. Corrective action was taken in 91% of cases, with documentation primarily in nurse charts. Conclusion Evaluation of the protocol for reporting critical results identified areas for improvement. Recommendations included revising the critical value list, reducing TAT through process optimization and automation, enhancing staff training and awareness, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and maintaining incident records. Implementing these changes can enhance compliance, reduce errors, and improve patient care.","PeriodicalId":16149,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Laboratory Physicians","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0043-1775573","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Abstract Background Critical value reporting is an essential aspect of laboratory medicine, ensuring prompt communication of life-threatening results to clinicians for immediate action. Existing guidelines emphasize the importance of timely notification, but protocols may vary. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the protocol for reporting critical results in the biochemistry laboratory of a tertiary care hospital and proposed alternative protocols for improvement. Materials and Methods Data were collected over a 6-month period, including the total number of investigations, critical values detected, parameters analyzed, and clinical departments involved. Quality indicators such as turnaround time (TAT), unsuccessful reporting rates, and clinical actions taken were assessed. Statistical analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel. Results Out of 390,000 investigations, 0.5% had critical values. Serum potassium (55.9%) had the highest frequency of critical values, followed by sodium, calcium, and glucose. The emergency department received the highest number of critical alerts. The success rate of critical result reporting within 1 hour was 86.8%, while unsuccessful reporting accounted for 10.7%. The causes of unsuccessful reporting included outpatient requests and delayed intimation due to patient transfers. Corrective action was taken in 91% of cases, with documentation primarily in nurse charts. Conclusion Evaluation of the protocol for reporting critical results identified areas for improvement. Recommendations included revising the critical value list, reducing TAT through process optimization and automation, enhancing staff training and awareness, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, and maintaining incident records. Implementing these changes can enhance compliance, reduce errors, and improve patient care.