ArticleBiochemia medica2016
Failure to review STAT clinical laboratory requests and its economical impact.
Article in Biochemia medica, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The impact of health information technology on the management and follow-up of test results - a systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2019Pooled it
- Real-Time Intraoperative Consultation Reporting in the Electronic Health Record.American journal of clinical pathology · 2020Article
- Alopecia and Iron Deficiency: An Interventional Pilot Study in Primary Care to Improve the Request of Ferritin.Advances in hematology · 2020Article
- National survey on turnaround time of clinical biochemistry tests in 738 laboratories in China.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFailure 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
methodsIn 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.
results7924 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.
conclusionsIn 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.