ArticleJournal of clinical laboratory analysis2020
Real-time display of laboratory testing status improves satisfaction levels in an emergency department: A pilot study.
Article in Journal of clinical laboratory analysis, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers and facilitators to utilizing digital health technologies by healthcare professionals.NPJ digital medicine · 2023Review
- Development and Application of Computerized Risk Registry and Management Tool Based on FMEA and FRACAS for Total Testing Process.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Article
- Real-time display of laboratory testing status improves satisfaction levels in an emergency department: A pilot study.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2020Article
- Improving Blood Product Transfusion Premedication Plan Documentation: A Single-institution Quality Improvement Effort.Pediatric quality & safetyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundClinicians need to know timelines of requested laboratory tests to provide effective patient management. We developed a real-time laboratory progress checking system and measured its effectiveness using appropriate indicators in an emergency room setting.
methodsIn our original in-house health information system display, blank spaces, which were generated for test results when tests were ordered, remained empty until the final results reported. We upgraded the laboratory reporting system to show real-time testing information. The stages included requests for test, label printing, sampling, laboratory receipts, performance of tests, verification of results, and interpretation of results and final report by laboratory physician. To assess the usefulness of the function, we measured the emergency department healthcare workers' satisfaction and compared the number of phone calls about test status before and after implementation.
resultsAfter the system upgrade, the healthcare workers' understanding of the testing process increased significantly as follows. More clinicians could estimate the time of final test results through the real-time testing status information (61.9% and 85.7%, P = .002), and respondents reported that the upgraded system was more convenient than the original system (41.3% and 22.2%, respectively, P = .022). The number of phone calls about the test status decreased after implementation of the upgrade; however, the difference was not statistically significant (before, 0.13% [63 calls/48 637 tests] and after, 0.09% [42/46 666]; P = .066).
conclusionsThe real-time display of laboratory testing status increased understanding of testing process among healthcare workers in emergency room, which ultimately may increase the usefulness and efficiency of the laboratory service use.
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.