Establishing the Reportable Interval for Routine Clinical Laboratory Tests: A Data-Driven Strategy Leveraging Retrospective Electronic Medical Record Data.

IF 1.8 Q3 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine Pub Date : 2024-07-01 DOI:10.1093/jalm/jfae021
Ahmed M Zayed, Veroniek Saegeman, Nicolas Delvaux
{"title":"Establishing the Reportable Interval for Routine Clinical Laboratory Tests: A Data-Driven Strategy Leveraging Retrospective Electronic Medical Record Data.","authors":"Ahmed M Zayed, Veroniek Saegeman, Nicolas Delvaux","doi":"10.1093/jalm/jfae021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This paper presents a data-driven strategy for establishing the reportable interval in clinical laboratory testing. The reportable interval defines the range of laboratory result values beyond which reporting should be withheld. The lack of clear guidelines and methodology for determining the reportable interval has led to potential errors in reporting and patient risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To address this gap, the study developed an integrated strategy that combines statistical analysis, expert review, and hypothetical outlier calculations. A large data set from an accredited clinical laboratory was utilized, analyzing over 124 million laboratory test records from 916 distinct tests. The Dixon test was applied to identify outliers and establish the highest and lowest non-outlier result values for each test, which were validated by clinical pathology experts. The methodology also included matching the reportable intervals with relevant Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) and Unified Code for Units of Measure (UCUM)-valid units for broader applicability.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Upon establishing the reportable interval for 135 routine laboratory tests (493 LOINC codes), we applied these to a primary care laboratory data set of 23 million records, demonstrating their efficacy with over 1% of result records identified as implausible.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We developed and tested a data-driven strategy for establishing reportable intervals utilizing large electronic medical record (EMR) data sets. Implementing the established interval in clinical laboratory settings can improve autoverification systems, enhance data reliability, and reduce errors in patient care. Ongoing refinement and reporting of cases exceeding the reportable limits will contribute to continuous improvement in laboratory result management and patient safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":46361,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"776-788"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jalm/jfae021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This paper presents a data-driven strategy for establishing the reportable interval in clinical laboratory testing. The reportable interval defines the range of laboratory result values beyond which reporting should be withheld. The lack of clear guidelines and methodology for determining the reportable interval has led to potential errors in reporting and patient risk.

Methods: To address this gap, the study developed an integrated strategy that combines statistical analysis, expert review, and hypothetical outlier calculations. A large data set from an accredited clinical laboratory was utilized, analyzing over 124 million laboratory test records from 916 distinct tests. The Dixon test was applied to identify outliers and establish the highest and lowest non-outlier result values for each test, which were validated by clinical pathology experts. The methodology also included matching the reportable intervals with relevant Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) and Unified Code for Units of Measure (UCUM)-valid units for broader applicability.

Results: Upon establishing the reportable interval for 135 routine laboratory tests (493 LOINC codes), we applied these to a primary care laboratory data set of 23 million records, demonstrating their efficacy with over 1% of result records identified as implausible.

Conclusions: We developed and tested a data-driven strategy for establishing reportable intervals utilizing large electronic medical record (EMR) data sets. Implementing the established interval in clinical laboratory settings can improve autoverification systems, enhance data reliability, and reduce errors in patient care. Ongoing refinement and reporting of cases exceeding the reportable limits will contribute to continuous improvement in laboratory result management and patient safety.

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
确定常规临床实验室检验的可报告区间:利用回顾性电子病历数据的数据驱动策略。
背景:本文介绍了在临床实验室检测中确定可报告区间的数据驱动策略。可报告间期定义了实验室结果值的范围,超过这个范围就不应报告。由于缺乏明确的指南和方法来确定可报告区间,导致了潜在的报告错误和患者风险:为了弥补这一不足,该研究开发了一种综合策略,将统计分析、专家评审和假设离群值计算结合在一起。研究利用了一个来自认可临床实验室的大型数据集,分析了来自 916 种不同检验项目的超过 1.24 亿条检验记录。采用 Dixon 检验来识别异常值,并确定每项检验的最高和最低非异常值结果值,这些结果值都经过了临床病理学专家的验证。该方法还包括将可报告区间与相关的逻辑观察标识符名称和代码(LOINC)以及计量单位统一代码(UCUM)验证单位进行匹配,以扩大适用范围:结果:在确定了 135 项常规实验室检测项目(493 个 LOINC 代码)的可报告间隔后,我们将其应用于包含 2,300 万条记录的初级医疗实验室数据集,结果显示,超过 1%的结果记录被认定为不合理,证明了其有效性:我们开发并测试了一种以数据为导向的策略,利用大型电子病历 (EMR) 数据集确定可报告区间。在临床实验室环境中实施既定的间隔期可以改善自动验证系统、提高数据可靠性并减少患者护理中的错误。不断完善和报告超出可报告范围的病例将有助于持续改进实验室结果管理和患者安全。
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
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine
Journal of Applied Laboratory Medicine MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
5.00%
发文量
137
期刊最新文献
Revisiting the Environmental Impact of Inappropriate Clinical Laboratory Testing: A Comprehensive Overview of Sustainability, Economic, and Quality of Care Outcomes. What Is Diagnostic Stewardship? A Committee-Based Diagnostic Stewardship Model for Pathogen Metagenomic Sequencing in Children. Blood Culture Contamination and Diagnostic Stewardship: From a Clinical Laboratory Quality Monitor to a National Patient Safety Measure. Building a Stewardship Committee: Technical Tips from the Trenches.
×
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