ArticleJournal of clinical microbiology2024
Retrospective evaluation of clinical decision support for within-laboratory optimization of SARS-CoV-2 NAAT workflow.
Article in Journal of clinical microbiology, 2024. 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The unprecedented demand for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) testing led to challenges in prioritizing and processing specimens efficiently. We describe and evaluate a novel workflow using provider- and patient-facing ask at order entry (AOE) questions to generate distinctive icons on specimen labels for within-laboratory clinical decision support (CDS) for specimen triaging. A multidisciplinary committee established target turnaround times (TATs) for SARS-CoV-2 nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) based on common clinical scenarios. A set of AOE questions was used to collect relevant clinical information that prompted icon generation for triaging SARS-CoV-2 NAAT specimens. We assessed the collect-to-verify TATs among relevant clinical scenarios. Our study included a total of 1,385,813 SARS-CoV-2 NAAT conducted from March 2020 to June 2022. Most testing met the TAT targets established by institutional committees, but deviations from target TATs occurred during periods of high demand and supply shortages. Median TATs for emergency department (ED) and inpatient specimens and ambulatory pre-procedure populations were stable over the pandemic. However, healthcare worker and other ambulatory test TATs varied substantially, depending on testing volume and community transmission rates. Median TAT significantly differed throughout the pandemic for ED and inpatient clinical scenarios, and there were significant differences in TAT among label icon-signified ambulatory clinical scenarios. We describe a novel approach to CDS for triaging specimens within the laboratory. The use of CDS tools could help clinical laboratories prioritize and process specimens efficiently, especially during times of high demand. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of our CDS tool on overall laboratory efficiency and patient outcomes. IMPORTANCE We describe a novel approach to clinical decision support (CDS) for triaging specimens within the clinical laboratory for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‑CoV‑2) nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT). The use of our CDS tool could help clinical laboratories prioritize and process specimens efficiently, especially during times of high demand. There were significant differences in the turnaround time for specimens differentiated by icons on specimen labels. Further studies are needed to evaluate the impact of our CDS tool on overall laboratory efficiency and patient outcomes.
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.