Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35291500›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical biochemistry2022

Error evaluation in the laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems.

Azila Arifin, Maryati Mohd-Yusof

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical biochemistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Azila ArifinUniversity Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.
Maryati Mohd-YusofUniversity Kebangsaan Malaysia, Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Bangi, Selangor, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The laboratory testing process consist of five analysis phases featuring the total testing process framework. Activities in laboratory process, including those of testing are error-prone and affect the use of laboratory information systems. This study seeks to identify error factors related to system use and the first and last phases of the laboratory testing process using a proposed framework known as total testing process-laboratory information systems. Methods: We conducted a qualitative case study evaluation in two private hospitals and a medical laboratory. We collected data using interviews, observations, and document analysis methods involving physicians, nurses, an information technology officer, and the laboratory staff. We employed the proposed framework and Lean problem solving tools namely Value Stream Mapping and A3 for data analysis. Results: Errors in laboratory information systems and the laboratory testing process were attributed to failure to fulfill user requirements, poor cooperation between the information technology unit and laboratory, inconsistency of software design in system integration, errors during inter-system data transmission, and lack of motivation in system use. The error factors are related to system development elements, namely, latent failures that considerably affected the information quality and system use. Errors in system development were also attributed to poor service quality. Conclusions: Complex laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems require rigorous evaluation in minimizing errors and ensuring patient safety. The proposed framework and Lean approach are applicable for evaluating the laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems in a rigorous, comprehensive, and structured manner.

Indexed as

case studyerrorevaluationframeworklaboratory information systemsLeanpatient safetysocio-technicaltotal testing process

Identifiers

PMID35291500
PMCPMC8882017

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.