Croatian survey on critical results reporting |
| |
| Authors: | Lara Milevoj Kopcinovic Jasenka Trifunovi? Tihana Pavosevic Nora Nikolac |
| |
| Institution: | 1.University Department of Chemistry, University Hospital Sestre Milosrdnice, Zagreb, Croatia;2.Department of Medical Biochemistry, Special Hospital for Medical Rehabilitation Varazdinske Toplice, Varazdinske Toplice, Croatia;3.Department of Clinical Laboratory Diagnostics, Clinical Hospital Centre Osijek, Osijek, Croatia |
| |
| Abstract: | IntroductionPoor harmonization of critical results management is present in various laboratories and countries, including Croatia. We aimed to investigate procedures used in critical results reporting in Croatian medical biochemistry laboratories (MBLs).Materials and methodsAn anonymous questionnaire, consisting of 24 questions/statements, related to critical results reporting procedures, was send to managers of MBLs in Croatia. Participants were asked to declare the frequency of performing procedures and degree of agreement with statements about critical values reporting using a Likert scale. Total score and mean scores for corresponding separate statements divided according to health care setting were calculated and compared.ResultsResponses from 111 Croatian laboratories (48%) were analyzed. General practice laboratories (GPLs) more often re-analyzed the sample before reporting the critical result in comparison with the hospital laboratories (HLs) (score: 4.86 (4.75-4.96) vs. 4.49 (4.25-4.72); P = 0.001) and more often reported the critical value exclusively to the responsible physician compared to HLs (4.46 (4.29-4.64) vs. 3.76 (3.48-4.03), P < 0.001). High total score (4.69 (4.56-4.82)) was observed for selection of the critical results list issued by the Croatian Chamber of Medical Biochemistry (CCMB) indicating a high harmonization level for this aspect of critical result management. Low total scores were observed for the statements regarding data recording and documentation of critical result notification.ConclusionsDifferences in practices about critical results reporting between HLs and GPLs were found. The homogeneity of least favorable responses detected for data recording and documentation of critical results notification reflects the lack of specific national recommendations.Key words: critical results, laboratory testing, quality indicators, survey, post-analytical phase |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
