ArticleAmerican journal of clinical pathology2020
Real-Time Intraoperative Consultation Reporting in the Electronic Health Record.
Article in American journal of clinical pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe sought to make pathologists' intraoperative consultation (IOC) results immediately available to the surgical team, other clinicians, and laboratory medicine colleagues to improve communication and decrease postanalytic errors.
methodsWe created an IOC report in our stand-alone laboratory information system that could be signed out prior to, and independent of, the final report, and transfer immediately to the electronic health record (EHR) as a preliminary diagnosis. We evaluated two metrics: preliminary (IOC) result review in the EHR by clinicians and postanalytic errors.
resultsWe assessed 2,886 IOC orders from the first 22 months after implementation. Clinicians reviewed 1,956 (68%) of the IOC results while in preliminary status, including 1,399 (48%) within the first 24 hours. We evaluated 150 cases preimplementation and 300 cases postimplementation for discrepancies between the pathologist's IOC result and the IOC result recorded by the surgeon in the operative note. Discrepancies dropped from 12 of 150 preimplementation to 6 of 150 and 7 of 150 in postimplementation years 1 and 2. One of the 25 discrepancies had a major clinical impact.
conclusionsReal-time reporting of IOC results to the EHR reliably transmits results immediately to clinical teams. This strategy reduces but does not eliminate postanalytic interpretive errors by clinical teams.
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.