Laboratorian Interpretation of Drug Testing Results in Pain Management: Lessons From College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing.

Christine L H Snozek, Loralie J Langman, Annabel Dizon, Matthew D Krasowski
{"title":"Laboratorian Interpretation of Drug Testing Results in Pain Management: Lessons From College of American Pathologists Proficiency Testing.","authors":"Christine L H Snozek, Loralie J Langman, Annabel Dizon, Matthew D Krasowski","doi":"10.5858/arpa.2023-0310-CP","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Context.—: </strong>Accurate interpretation of drug test results is key to appropriate patient care in numerous settings including pain management. Despite recommendations that providers should consult laboratory professionals for guidance when necessary, literature demonstrating laboratorian expertise in drug test interpretation is lacking.</p><p><strong>Objective.—: </strong>To evaluate participating laboratories' performance on the case-based, interpretive (\"dry\") challenge included with each Drug Monitoring for Pain Management proficiency testing program from 2012-2023.</p><p><strong>Design.—: </strong>All challenges (n = 23) required participants to identify if drug test results were consistent or inconsistent with prescribed medications in the case history. Relevant medications, presumptive and confirmatory drug test results, and participant responses were extracted from program summary reports and examined for performance and common themes.</p><p><strong>Results.—: </strong>Overall, 91.8% (6821 of 7431) of participant responses correctly identified whether drug testing was consistent with medications. There were 8 challenges with participant scores below 91.8% (range, 59.8% [49 of 82 responses] to 88.9% [193 of 217 responses]). Common knowledge gaps identified in these challenges included false-positive presumptive (screening) results, minor metabolism of opiates, and recognizing that presence of a nonprescribed drug is inconsistent with prescribed medications. Although some participants repeatedly responded incorrectly, there were no associations between laboratory type, personnel responding, or analytical performance with incorrect responses to interpretative challenges.</p><p><strong>Conclusions.—: </strong>Program participants performed well overall, but several concerning educational gaps were identified. Laboratorians have a role in providing interpretative guidance for drug testing and should emphasize ongoing education to ensure competence in the setting of constantly changing prescribed and nonprescribed drug use.</p>","PeriodicalId":93883,"journal":{"name":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2023-0310-CP","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Context.—: Accurate interpretation of drug test results is key to appropriate patient care in numerous settings including pain management. Despite recommendations that providers should consult laboratory professionals for guidance when necessary, literature demonstrating laboratorian expertise in drug test interpretation is lacking.

Objective.—: To evaluate participating laboratories' performance on the case-based, interpretive ("dry") challenge included with each Drug Monitoring for Pain Management proficiency testing program from 2012-2023.

Design.—: All challenges (n = 23) required participants to identify if drug test results were consistent or inconsistent with prescribed medications in the case history. Relevant medications, presumptive and confirmatory drug test results, and participant responses were extracted from program summary reports and examined for performance and common themes.

Results.—: Overall, 91.8% (6821 of 7431) of participant responses correctly identified whether drug testing was consistent with medications. There were 8 challenges with participant scores below 91.8% (range, 59.8% [49 of 82 responses] to 88.9% [193 of 217 responses]). Common knowledge gaps identified in these challenges included false-positive presumptive (screening) results, minor metabolism of opiates, and recognizing that presence of a nonprescribed drug is inconsistent with prescribed medications. Although some participants repeatedly responded incorrectly, there were no associations between laboratory type, personnel responding, or analytical performance with incorrect responses to interpretative challenges.

Conclusions.—: Program participants performed well overall, but several concerning educational gaps were identified. Laboratorians have a role in providing interpretative guidance for drug testing and should emphasize ongoing education to ensure competence in the setting of constantly changing prescribed and nonprescribed drug use.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
实验室人员对疼痛治疗药物检测结果的解释:美国病理学家学会能力测试的启示。
背景在包括疼痛治疗在内的许多情况下,准确解读药物检测结果是为患者提供适当护理的关键。尽管有人建议医疗服务提供者在必要时应向实验室专业人员寻求指导,但目前尚缺乏证明实验室在药物检测解读方面具有专业知识的文献:评估参与实验室在 2012 年至 2023 年期间每次疼痛管理药物监测能力验证计划中基于案例的解释性("干")挑战中的表现:所有挑战(n = 23)都要求参与者确定药物检测结果是否与病例中的处方药一致或不一致。从项目总结报告中提取了相关药物、推定和确证药物测试结果以及参与者的回答,并对其表现和共同主题进行了研究:总体而言,91.8%(7431 人中的 6821 人)的参与者回答正确识别了药物测试是否与药物一致。有 8 项挑战的参与者得分低于 91.8%(范围从 59.8%[82 个回答中的 49 个]到 88.9%[217 个回答中的 193 个])。在这些挑战中发现的常见知识差距包括假阳性推定(筛查)结果、鸦片制剂的微量代谢以及认识到非处方药物的存在与处方药物不一致。虽然一些参与者多次回答错误,但实验室类型、回答人员或分析性能与解释性挑战的错误回答之间没有关联:该计划的参与者总体表现良好,但也发现了一些令人担忧的教育差距。实验室人员在为药物检测提供解释性指导方面扮演着重要角色,他们应重视持续教育,以确保在处方药和非处方药使用不断变化的情况下能够胜任工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lymphangioleiomyomatosis: A Review. Exploring the Incidence of Testicular Neoplasms in the Transgender Population: A Case Series. Global Pathology: A Snapshot of the Problems, the Progress, and the Potential. Pathologists Providing Direct Patient Care in Thoracic Transplant: Same Objective, Different Scope. The Impact of Pathologist Review on Peripheral Blood Smears: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of 22 Laboratories.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1