Cargando…

Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact

BACKGROUND: Failure to follow-up laboratory test results has been described as one of the major processes contributing to unsafe patient care. Currently, most of the laboratories do not know with certainty not only their rate of missed (or unreviewed) requests but the economical cost and impact that...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rodriguez-Borja, Enrique, Villalba-Martinez, Celia, Barba-Serrano, Esther, Carratala-Calvo, Arturo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783091/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26981019
http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.005
_version_ 1782420070485458944
author Rodriguez-Borja, Enrique
Villalba-Martinez, Celia
Barba-Serrano, Esther
Carratala-Calvo, Arturo
author_facet Rodriguez-Borja, Enrique
Villalba-Martinez, Celia
Barba-Serrano, Esther
Carratala-Calvo, Arturo
author_sort Rodriguez-Borja, Enrique
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Failure to follow-up laboratory test results has been described as one of the major processes contributing to unsafe patient care. Currently, most of the laboratories do not know with certainty not only their rate of missed (or unreviewed) requests but the economical cost and impact that this issue implies. The aim of our study was to measure that rate and calculate the resulting costs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In January 2015, we checked in our Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for every emergency request from 1(st) July 2011 to 30(th) June 2014, if they had been reviewed by any allowed user or not. 319,064 requests were ordered during that period of time. Results were expressed as “ordered requests”, “missed requests” and its percentage. Additionally, total cost of missed requests was calculated in euros (€). “Non-productive days” were theorised (as the days producing requests that were not reviewed) based on these results. RESULTS: 7924 requests (2.5%) were never reviewed by clinicians. This represented a total cost of 203,039 € and 27 “non-productive” days in three years. Significant differences between inpatients, outpatients and emergency department as well as different emergencies units were found after application of statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of resources, never reviewed or missed requests appear to be a not negligible problem for the clinical laboratory management. Electronic result delivery, with electronic endorsement to indicate follow-up of requests along with better systems of electronic requesting should be investigated as a way of improving patient outcomes and save unnecessary expenses.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4783091
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47830912016-03-15 Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact Rodriguez-Borja, Enrique Villalba-Martinez, Celia Barba-Serrano, Esther Carratala-Calvo, Arturo Biochem Med (Zagreb) Research Article BACKGROUND: Failure to follow-up laboratory test results has been described as one of the major processes contributing to unsafe patient care. Currently, most of the laboratories do not know with certainty not only their rate of missed (or unreviewed) requests but the economical cost and impact that this issue implies. The aim of our study was to measure that rate and calculate the resulting costs. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In January 2015, we checked in our Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS) for every emergency request from 1(st) July 2011 to 30(th) June 2014, if they had been reviewed by any allowed user or not. 319,064 requests were ordered during that period of time. Results were expressed as “ordered requests”, “missed requests” and its percentage. Additionally, total cost of missed requests was calculated in euros (€). “Non-productive days” were theorised (as the days producing requests that were not reviewed) based on these results. RESULTS: 7924 requests (2.5%) were never reviewed by clinicians. This represented a total cost of 203,039 € and 27 “non-productive” days in three years. Significant differences between inpatients, outpatients and emergency department as well as different emergencies units were found after application of statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In terms of resources, never reviewed or missed requests appear to be a not negligible problem for the clinical laboratory management. Electronic result delivery, with electronic endorsement to indicate follow-up of requests along with better systems of electronic requesting should be investigated as a way of improving patient outcomes and save unnecessary expenses. Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine 2016-02-15 2016-02-15 /pmc/articles/PMC4783091/ /pubmed/26981019 http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.005 Text en
spellingShingle Research Article
Rodriguez-Borja, Enrique
Villalba-Martinez, Celia
Barba-Serrano, Esther
Carratala-Calvo, Arturo
Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact
title Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact
title_full Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact
title_fullStr Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact
title_full_unstemmed Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact
title_short Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact
title_sort failure to review stat clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4783091/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26981019
http://dx.doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.005
work_keys_str_mv AT rodriguezborjaenrique failuretoreviewstatclinicallaboratoryrequestsanditseconomicalimpact
AT villalbamartinezcelia failuretoreviewstatclinicallaboratoryrequestsanditseconomicalimpact
AT barbaserranoesther failuretoreviewstatclinicallaboratoryrequestsanditseconomicalimpact
AT carratalacalvoarturo failuretoreviewstatclinicallaboratoryrequestsanditseconomicalimpact