Critical value reporting of direct antiglobulin testing in newborns: No discernable pattern

Transfusion ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 61 (6) ◽  
pp. 1987-1987
Author(s):  
Garrett S. Booth
2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (3) ◽  
pp. 376-380 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scott R. Owens ◽  
Ulysses G.J. Balis ◽  
David R. Lucas ◽  
Jeffrey L. Myers

2013 ◽  
Vol 712-715 ◽  
pp. 3203-3206
Author(s):  
Hong Wang ◽  
Ying Chang ◽  
Wen Sheng Che

Objective: Through the PDCA (Plan-Do-Check-Act, also called quality loop) cycle in the management of Critical Value Reporting, and then the discussion on the values of their application in the medical field. Methods: Data were divided into two groups (January to March in 2012 as before the implementation of PDCA-cycle and August to October as after the implementation of PDCA-cycle). Statistical analysis was applied for these two groups. Results: After the application of PDCA-cycle, the executing rate of critical values reporting increased from 38.2% to 96.4 % (P=0.000). The percentage of reporting time, repeat critical values reporting, reporters name and staff number, receivers name and staff number rised from 96.4%, 83.6%, 83.6%, 69.1% to 100.0%, 98.8%, 98.8%, 99.8%, respectively (P=0.000). Meanwhile, critical values reporting rate of Laboratory and Radiology also increased from 47.9%, 30.6% to 96.5%, 96.3% (P=0.000). Conclusion: This study suggested that the PDCA-cycle is an important tool for quality management, and it can effectively improve the executions of critical values reporting.


2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 205-211 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rasha Mosallam ◽  
Samaa Zenhom Ibrahim

2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yang Fei ◽  
Haijian Zhao ◽  
Wei Wang ◽  
Falin He ◽  
Kun Zhong ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 131 (1) ◽  
pp. 44-49 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Wagar ◽  
Ana K. Stankovic ◽  
David S. Wilkinson ◽  
Molly Walsh ◽  
Rhona J. Souers

Abstract Context.—Critical laboratory value reporting is a highly visible and essential key activity for clinical laboratories. Objective.—To measure critical laboratory value reporting in multiple institutions over time and to examine the practice patterns and demographic factors associated with sustained improvement in critical value reporting. Design.—A longitudinal cohort study of 180 clinical laboratories that provided quarterly critical values reporting data for 2 to 16 quarters was conducted using a uniform definition of successful caregiver notification. Mixed linear model analysis of the 2001 through 2004 dataset was performed. Results.—A decrease in total and inpatient rates of undocumented critical values per 1000 results was associated with (1) the American Association of Blood Banks inspection within the past 2 years (P = .01, for both total and inpatient rates); (2) unit secretary/clerical staff not authorized to accept inpatient critical value notification (P = .004 [total] and .001 [inpatient]); and (3) the mandatory practice of requiring notification of health care providers when handling inpatients known to have results repeatedly in the critical range (P = .01, for both total and inpatient rates). Continued participation in the Q-Tracks monitoring program was associated with significant and progressive improvement in total, inpatient, and outpatient critical value reporting (P = .02, .01, and .003, respectively). Conclusions.—Critical value reporting improved as the duration of participation in the Q-Tracks monitoring program increased. Improved total and inpatient critical value reporting was associated with factors that may be markers for institutions with priorities of quality management and enhanced communication with responsible caregivers.


2008 ◽  
Vol 132 (10) ◽  
pp. 1666-1671
Author(s):  
Anand S. Dighe ◽  
Jay B. Jones ◽  
Sue Parham ◽  
Kent B. Lewandrowski

Abstract Context.—Reporting of laboratory critical values has become an issue of national attention because of important regulatory, medicolegal, and clinical concerns. Objective.—To survey aspects of the laboratory critical-value reporting process at a broad range of institutions. Design.—A survey was developed regarding the operational and information-technology aspects of critical value reporting. Results.—More than 730 responses were obtained from a broad distribution of hospitals. In addition, we analyzed more than 700 written responses from survey participants. Conclusions.—The survey results provide insight into the standard of practice and level of compliance with current Joint Commission and College of American Pathologists requirements for critical values, demonstrate considerable heterogeneity, and suggest areas for improvement. A common issue raised during the survey and follow-up teleconference was the incidence of outpatient false-positive critical values. In this report, we also demonstrate that attention to preanalytic transport and processing issues can assist in minimizing this issue.


2006 ◽  
Vol 125 (5) ◽  
pp. 758-764 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anand S. Dighe ◽  
Arjun Rao ◽  
Amanda B. Coakley ◽  
Kent B. Lewandrowski

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document