Cargando…

Critical Risk Results – An Update on International Initiatives

Direct communication of significant (often life-threatening) results is a universally acknowledged role of the pathology laboratory, and an important contributor to patient safety. Amongst the findings of a recent survey of 871 laboratories from 30 countries by the European Federation of Clinical Ch...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lam, Q., Ajzner, E., Campbell, C.A., Young, A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: The Communications and Publications Division (CPD) of the IFCC 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27683507
_version_ 1782446681872138240
author Lam, Q.
Ajzner, E.
Campbell, C.A.
Young, A.
author_facet Lam, Q.
Ajzner, E.
Campbell, C.A.
Young, A.
author_sort Lam, Q.
collection PubMed
description Direct communication of significant (often life-threatening) results is a universally acknowledged role of the pathology laboratory, and an important contributor to patient safety. Amongst the findings of a recent survey of 871 laboratories from 30 countries by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM), only 3 tests were noted to be common to 90% of alert lists, and only 48% of laboratories consulted clinicians in developing these alert lists despite ISO15189 recommendations to do so. These findings are similar to previous national surveys demonstrating significant variation worldwide in how critical risk results are managed and also in how these protocols are developed. In order to promote “best practice” and harmonization of critical risk results management, guidelines and recommendations have been published, most recently by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB). These statements in particular have placed strong emphasis on patient risk and risk assessment in the management of critical risk results. This focus has resulted in recommendations to adopt new terminology, the consideration of risk assessment when compiling alert tables, consultative involvement of laboratory users in setting up protocols, and the need for outcome-based evidence to support our practices. With time it is expected that emerging evidence and technological improvements will facilitate the advancement of laboratories down this path to harmonization, best practice, and improve patient safety.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4975218
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher The Communications and Publications Division (CPD) of the IFCC
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49752182016-09-28 Critical Risk Results – An Update on International Initiatives Lam, Q. Ajzner, E. Campbell, C.A. Young, A. EJIFCC Research Article Direct communication of significant (often life-threatening) results is a universally acknowledged role of the pathology laboratory, and an important contributor to patient safety. Amongst the findings of a recent survey of 871 laboratories from 30 countries by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM), only 3 tests were noted to be common to 90% of alert lists, and only 48% of laboratories consulted clinicians in developing these alert lists despite ISO15189 recommendations to do so. These findings are similar to previous national surveys demonstrating significant variation worldwide in how critical risk results are managed and also in how these protocols are developed. In order to promote “best practice” and harmonization of critical risk results management, guidelines and recommendations have been published, most recently by Clinical and Laboratory Standards Institute (CLSI) and Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB). These statements in particular have placed strong emphasis on patient risk and risk assessment in the management of critical risk results. This focus has resulted in recommendations to adopt new terminology, the consideration of risk assessment when compiling alert tables, consultative involvement of laboratory users in setting up protocols, and the need for outcome-based evidence to support our practices. With time it is expected that emerging evidence and technological improvements will facilitate the advancement of laboratories down this path to harmonization, best practice, and improve patient safety. The Communications and Publications Division (CPD) of the IFCC 2016-02-09 /pmc/articles/PMC4975218/ /pubmed/27683507 Text en Copyright © 2016 International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lam, Q.
Ajzner, E.
Campbell, C.A.
Young, A.
Critical Risk Results – An Update on International Initiatives
title Critical Risk Results – An Update on International Initiatives
title_full Critical Risk Results – An Update on International Initiatives
title_fullStr Critical Risk Results – An Update on International Initiatives
title_full_unstemmed Critical Risk Results – An Update on International Initiatives
title_short Critical Risk Results – An Update on International Initiatives
title_sort critical risk results – an update on international initiatives
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4975218/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27683507
work_keys_str_mv AT lamq criticalriskresultsanupdateoninternationalinitiatives
AT ajznere criticalriskresultsanupdateoninternationalinitiatives
AT campbellca criticalriskresultsanupdateoninternationalinitiatives
AT younga criticalriskresultsanupdateoninternationalinitiatives