Search

Introduction: Alerted by the high rates of request of serum uric acid (UA) in primary care patients, we aimed to design a strategy to improve such an indicator, and to monitor such an intervention through process and outcome appropriateness indicators., Methods: To design the strategy, several meetings were held between the Laboratory, Rheumatology and Primary Care. The intervention consisted of discharging UA from two laboratory profiles ("Health Check" and "Rheumatology"), making it only possible to request the test in an individualized manner. To assess the intervention effectiveness, the ratio of UA/glucose requests, the quantity of allopurinol prescription and the resulting economic savings were calculated and compared for pre- and post-intervention 12 month periods., Results: There was a 70% decrease in the number of UA requests in the post-intervention period, as compared to the pre-intervention interval. The ratio of UA/glucose requests experienced a significant commensurate drop in the post-intervention period (p<0.01). There was a significant reduction in the prescription of allopurinol (p<0.01). From an economic perspective, the strategy resulted in a savings of 8190 €., Conclusion: The strategy resulted in a dramatic drop in the number of UA requests and in the prescription of allopurinol. This highlights a likely existence of prior unnecessary treatment of patients with hyperuricemia in the absence of clinical symptoms., (Copyright © 2014 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The eradication of errors regarding patients' identification is one of the main goals for safety improvement. As clinical laboratory intervenes in 70% of clinical decisions, laboratory safety is crucial in patient safety. We studied the number of Laboratory Information System (LIS) demographic data errors registered in our laboratory during one year., Methods: The laboratory attends a variety of inpatients and outpatients. The demographic data of outpatients is registered in the LIS, when they present to the laboratory front desk. The requests from the primary care centers (PCC) are made electronically by the general practitioner. A manual step is always done at the PCC to conciliate the patient identification number in the electronic request with the one in the LIS. Manual registration is done through hospital information system demographic data capture when patient's medical record number is registered in LIS. Laboratory report is always sent out electronically to the patient's electronic medical record. Daily, every demographic data in LIS is manually compared to the request form to detect potential errors., Results: Fewer errors were committed when electronic order was used. There was great error variability between PCC when using the electronic order., Conclusions: LIS demographic data manual registration errors depended on patient origin and test requesting method. Even when using the electronic approach, errors were detected. There was a great variability between PCC even when using this electronic modality; this suggests that the number of errors is still dependent on the personnel in charge of the technology., (© 2013.)

Objectives: The objectives of this study are to introduce the "alert value reporting" concept in primary care setting, to propose a list of chemistry and hematology alert limit tests that can be chosen for that strategy, to show how this notification procedure can be designed and established, and finally to evaluate the effectiveness and physicians' satisfaction regarding the proposed approach. In contrast to critical value reporting, alert value reporting would not allude to a result that may imply a life-threatening situation, but would indicate that an early diagnostic/therapeutic action would improve the patient's management and quality of life., Design and Methods: A list of chemistry and hematology alert limit tests to be used for the strategy was agreed upon between laboratory professionals and general practitioners. Next, a retrospective 12-month study involving more than 1 million laboratory tests was made to check how many of these alert values would have been communicated if these theoretical alert values had been applied. A prospective analysis of every reported alert value during 6 months was carried out to assess the intervention effectiveness and the requesting physician's satisfaction with the new strategy., Results: The alert value reporting was successfully executed. 20% of the reported alert values motivated the decision to reschedule the next patient's appointment. 90% of physicians considered alert value reporting as an interesting strategy to be continued., Conclusions: Alert value reporting strategy motivated changes in patient's management. Further studies are needed to test if this approach can contribute to enhance patient safety and decision-making., (Copyright © 2012 The Canadian Society of Clinical Chemists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)