{"title":"Interpretative comments - need for harmonization? Results of the Croatian survey by the Working Group for Post-analytics.","authors":"Vladimira Rimac, Sonja Podolar, Anja Jokic, Jelena Vlasic Tanaskovic, Lorena Honovic, Jasna Lenicek Krleza","doi":"10.11613/BM.2022.010901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Interpretation of laboratory test results is a complex post-analytical activity that requires not only understanding of the clinical significance of laboratory results but also the analytical phase of laboratory work. The aims of this study were to determine: 1) the general opinion of Croatian medical biochemistry laboratories (MBLs) about the importance of interpretative comments on laboratory test reports, and 2) to find out whether harmonization of interpretative comments is needed.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This retrospective study was designed as a survey by the Working Group for Post-analytics as part of national External Quality Assessment (EQA) program. All 195 MBLs participating in the national EQA scheme, were invited to participate in the survey. Results are reported as percentages of the total number of survey participants.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 195 MBLs, 162 participated in the survey (83%). Among them 59% MBLs implemented test result comments in routine according to national recommendations. The majority of laboratories (92%) state that interpretative comments added value to the laboratory reports, and a substantial part (72%) does not have feedback from physicians on their significance. Although physicians and patients ask for expert opinion, participants stated that the lack of interest of physicians (64%) as well as the inability to access patient's medical record (62%) affects the quality of expert opinion.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Although most participants state that they use interpretative comments and provide expert opinions regarding test results, results of the present study indicate that harmonization for interpretative comments is needed.</p>","PeriodicalId":9021,"journal":{"name":"Biochemia Medica","volume":"32 1","pages":"010901"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8672392/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biochemia Medica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2022.010901","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/12/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: Interpretation of laboratory test results is a complex post-analytical activity that requires not only understanding of the clinical significance of laboratory results but also the analytical phase of laboratory work. The aims of this study were to determine: 1) the general opinion of Croatian medical biochemistry laboratories (MBLs) about the importance of interpretative comments on laboratory test reports, and 2) to find out whether harmonization of interpretative comments is needed.
Materials and methods: This retrospective study was designed as a survey by the Working Group for Post-analytics as part of national External Quality Assessment (EQA) program. All 195 MBLs participating in the national EQA scheme, were invited to participate in the survey. Results are reported as percentages of the total number of survey participants.
Results: Out of 195 MBLs, 162 participated in the survey (83%). Among them 59% MBLs implemented test result comments in routine according to national recommendations. The majority of laboratories (92%) state that interpretative comments added value to the laboratory reports, and a substantial part (72%) does not have feedback from physicians on their significance. Although physicians and patients ask for expert opinion, participants stated that the lack of interest of physicians (64%) as well as the inability to access patient's medical record (62%) affects the quality of expert opinion.
Conclusion: Although most participants state that they use interpretative comments and provide expert opinions regarding test results, results of the present study indicate that harmonization for interpretative comments is needed.
期刊介绍:
Biochemia Medica is the official peer-reviewed journal of the Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Journal provides a wide coverage of research in all aspects of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. Following categories fit into the scope of the Journal: general clinical chemistry, haematology and haemostasis, molecular diagnostics and endocrinology. Development, validation and verification of analytical techniques and methods applicable to clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine are welcome as well as studies dealing with laboratory organization, automation and quality control. Journal publishes on a regular basis educative preanalytical case reports (Preanalytical mysteries), articles dealing with applied biostatistics (Lessons in biostatistics) and research integrity (Research integrity corner).