Lippi Giuseppe, Giavarina Davide, Montagnana Martina, Luca Salvagno Gian, Cappelletti Piero, Plebani Mario, Guidi Gian Cesare
Sezione di Chimica e Microscopia Clinica, Dipartimento di Scienze Morfologico-Biomediche, Università degli Studi di Verona, Verona, Italy.
Clin Chem Lab Med. 2007;45(10):1411-3. doi: 10.1515/CCLM.2007.288.
Critical values' reporting is an essential requisite for clinical laboratories. Local policies were investigated within an indicative cohort of Italian laboratories to monitor the situation and establish a performance benchmark.
A five-point questionnaire was administered to 150 laboratory specialists attending the SIMEL (Italian Society of Laboratory Medicine) National Meeting in June 2006.
A total of 107 questionnaires (71.3%) were returned with a 100% individual question response rate. Only 55% of the participants acknowledge critical values reporting as an essential practice, 80% admit that a comprehensive list of critical values is unavailable in the laboratory and 4% do not promptly communicate critical values. The list of critical values is variable among laboratories, ranging from none to 20 analytes included. The requesting physician or his/her office staff receives the great majority (97%) of notifications by telephone for outpatients. Critical values for inpatients are notified directly by telephone (81%) and in a minority of cases by either fax or computer (19%). In the inpatient setting, the information is notified to physicians (77%), nurses (15%) or other healthcare staff in the clinic (8%). It was found that 49% of the participants adopt a standard (digital or written) policy for routine recording of notifications; in 32% of the cases the registration is left to individual attitudes, whereas in 20% of the cases the notification is not recorded. No laboratory has yet adopted a read-back verification of the complete test result by the person receiving the information.
The importance of critical value reporting is still poorly recognized in Italy and uniform or internationally accredited practices for communication and recording are not currently implemented.
危急值报告是临床实验室的一项基本要求。在一组具有代表性的意大利实验室中调查当地政策,以监测情况并建立性能基准。
2006年6月,向参加意大利实验医学学会(SIMEL)全国会议的150名实验室专家发放了一份五点问卷。
共收回107份问卷(71.3%),单个问题的回复率为100%。只有55%的参与者认可危急值报告是一项基本操作,80%承认实验室没有完整的危急值清单,4%没有及时传达危急值。各实验室的危急值清单各不相同,包含的分析物从无到20种不等。对于门诊患者,绝大多数(97%)的通知是通过电话告知请求医生或其办公室工作人员。住院患者的危急值通过电话直接通知(81%),少数情况通过传真或计算机通知(19%)。在住院环境中,信息通知给医生(77%)、护士(15%)或诊所的其他医护人员(8%)。发现49%的参与者采用标准(数字或书面)政策对通知进行常规记录;32%的情况下由个人自行记录,而20%的情况下不记录通知。尚无实验室采用接收信息者对完整检测结果进行回读核实的做法。
在意大利,危急值报告的重要性仍未得到充分认识,目前尚未实施统一或国际认可的沟通和记录做法。