Barlow Ian M
PathLinks Pathology Department, Scunthorpe General Hospital, Cliff Gardens, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire, UK.
Ann Clin Biochem. 2008 Jan;45(Pt 1):88-90. doi: 10.1258/acb.2007.007134.
Adding or incorporating clinical interpretative comments on biochemistry results is widespread in UK laboratories; although this consumes considerable human resource, there is still little evidence to suggest that it is either effective or appreciated by our clinical colleagues. I therefore decided to survey our local general practitioners (GPs) and nurse practitioners to analyse whether they found biochemistry comments on reports helpful.
A simple questionnaire was designed and sent to 159 GPs and 81 nurse practitioners asking them whether they found this activity useful for the limited range of test groups that we routinely comment on and also whether they would like to see commenting on more groups of tests.
Overall, 49.6% of questionnaires were returned. Of these, there was overwhelming support for commenting on reports and 77% would like to see comments on a greater range of tests.
Although adding clinical interpretative comments is very time-consuming for senior laboratory staff, there is overwhelming support of this activity among our GPs and nurse practitioner users; therefore, our local policy of routinely adding clinical comments will remain for the foreseeable future.
在英国的实验室中，添加或纳入关于生化检验结果的临床解释性注释十分普遍；尽管这耗费了大量人力资源，但仍几乎没有证据表明其有效或受到临床同行的认可。因此，我决定对当地的全科医生（GP）和执业护士进行调查，以分析他们是否觉得报告中的生化注释有所帮助。
设计了一份简单的问卷，并发送给159名全科医生和81名执业护士，询问他们是否认为这项活动对我们常规注释的有限检测组有用，以及他们是否希望看到对更多检测组进行注释。
总体而言，49.6%的问卷被收回。其中，对于报告注释有压倒性的支持，77%的人希望看到对更多检测组的注释。
尽管添加临床解释性注释对高级实验室工作人员来说非常耗时，但我们的全科医生和执业护士用户对此活动有压倒性的支持；因此，在可预见的未来，我们当地常规添加临床注释的政策将继续保留。
