解释性评论——需要统一吗?后分析工作小组克罗地亚调查的结果。

IF 3.8 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY Biochemia Medica Pub Date : 2022-02-15 Epub Date: 2021-12-15 DOI:10.11613/BM.2022.010901
Vladimira Rimac, Sonja Podolar, Anja Jokic, Jelena Vlasic Tanaskovic, Lorena Honovic, Jasna Lenicek Krleza
{"title":"解释性评论——需要统一吗?后分析工作小组克罗地亚调查的结果。","authors":"Vladimira Rimac,&nbsp;Sonja Podolar,&nbsp;Anja Jokic,&nbsp;Jelena Vlasic Tanaskovic,&nbsp;Lorena Honovic,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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":"{\"title\":\"Interpretative comments - need for harmonization? Results of the Croatian survey by the Working Group for Post-analytics.\",\"authors\":\"Vladimira Rimac,&nbsp;Sonja Podolar,&nbsp;Anja Jokic,&nbsp;Jelena Vlasic Tanaskovic,&nbsp;Lorena Honovic,&nbsp;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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

实验室检测结果的解释是一项复杂的分析后活动,不仅需要了解实验室结果的临床意义,还需要了解实验室工作的分析阶段。本研究的目的是确定:1)克罗地亚医学生物化学实验室(MBLs)对实验室检测报告解释性评论的重要性的一般意见,以及2)查明是否需要统一解释性评论。材料和方法:本回顾性研究是由后分析工作小组设计的一项调查,作为国家外部质量评估(EQA)计划的一部分。所有参加国家EQA计划的195个mbl都被邀请参加了调查。结果以调查参与者总数的百分比报告。结果:在195名MBLs中,162名(83%)参与了调查。其中59%的卫生院按照国家建议在日常工作中实施检测结果评议。大多数实验室(92%)表示解释性评论增加了实验室报告的价值,而且相当一部分(72%)没有医生对其重要性的反馈。虽然医生和病人都要求专家意见,但与会者表示,医生缺乏兴趣(64%)以及无法获得病人的医疗记录(62%)影响了专家意见的质量。结论:尽管大多数参与者表示他们使用解释性评论并就测试结果提供专家意见,但本研究的结果表明,解释性评论的协调是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Interpretative comments - need for harmonization? Results of the Croatian survey by the Working Group for Post-analytics.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Biochemia Medica
Biochemia Medica 医学-医学实验技术
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
3.00%
发文量
70
审稿时长
>12 weeks
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).
期刊最新文献
Quality assurance of add-on testing in plasma samples: stability limit for 29 biochemical analytes Two cases with discrepancy in the quantitative cytological assessment of cerebrospinal fluid in neonatal samples using light microscopy in comparison with Sysmex XN-1000 Common P-glycoprotein () polymorphisms do not seem to be associated with the risk of rivaroxaban-related bleeding events: Preliminary data CLSI-based verification and establishment of reference intervals for common biochemical assays in Croatian newborns Prediction interval: A powerful statistical tool for monitoring patients and analytical systems
×
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