659. Correlate Clinically and More-Use of Interpretative Comments in Clinical Microbiology Reporting

Background Microbial identification & antibiotic susceptibility testing is an important investigation in clinical microbiology laboratory. In many centres in India the report has only the isolate and antibiotics tested. The additional comments if added give guidance to the clinicians to utilize the results. Pre-analytical issues of adequate & relevant clinical history, appropriate sampling techniques, timely transport & storage, history of antibiotic usage along with post analytical issues of recommended line of antibiotic therapy and infection control practices are better addressed with this practice. Methods This was a prospective qualitative study from the period of January 2017-March 2021 where in the standard operating protocol of Clinical Microbiology was reviewed and appropriate comments were included in the Laboratory Information System once the isolate was identified using VITEK 2, automated ID/AST instrument and interfaced. The Clinical Microbiologist would then review the comments upon discussion with the clinicians and then authorize reports. The reports included sample & isolate specific details , recommended antibiotic therapy and infection control related comments. This was based on standard international and national guidelines (CLSI, EUCAST, IDSA, IAP, and National Treatment Guidelines of India). Results There was a gradual improvement in completion of request forms with clinical history, sample site and antibiotic history being mentioned. This was assessed through periodic audits conducted every quarter from 36% in March 2017 to 95% in March 2021. Clinical communication with the microbiology laboratory also showed improvement with documentation. Feedback from clinicians was also taken on the utility of these comments, (87/120)72.5% of the clinicians found them useful(Grade 5). (32/120) 26 %(Grade 3) of the clinicians had concerns about the turnaround time and requested for provisional reports. Conclusion Interpretative comments in reports act as a bridge between clinical microbiology, infectious diseases and infection control. They help us to choose the correct antibiotics or sometimes no antibiotics when the situation demands it. With all the recent advancements, the clinico-microbiological utility of culture reports is the need of the hour. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

Laboratory interpretative comments and guidance: clinical and operative outcomes on moderate to severe hyponatraemia patient management

AimsHyponatraemia is the most common body fluid disorders but often goes unnoticed. Our laboratory incorporated a standardised procedure to help clinicians detect moderate/severe hyponatraemia. The study aims were to evaluate the outcomes on patient care and clinicians’ satisfaction.MethodsThe study, observational and retrospective, included 1839 cases, adult and paediatric patients, with sodium concentration <130 mmol/L. The procedure consisted of interpretative comments in the emergency and core laboratories report and the point-of-care testing blood gas network report. We evaluated hyponatraemia length in two equal periods: before and after the implementation. We conducted a survey addressed to the staff of the clinical settings involved to know their satisfaction.ResultsThe median hyponatraemia length decreased significantly from 4.95 hours (2.08–16.57) in the first period to 2.17 hours (1.06–5.39) in the second period. The lack of hyponatraemia patients follow-up was significantly less after the procedure implementation. The survey was answered by 92 (60 senior specialists and 32 residents) out of 110 clinicians surveyed. Ninety of them (98%) answered positively.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated the reduction in the time for diagnosing and management by physicians, the higher uniformity in the time required to solve hyponatraemia episodes following our laboratory procedure and the clinicians’ satisfaction.

Quality assessment of interpretative commenting and competency comparison of comment providers in China

Background This study aimed to evaluate the ability of comment providers who were responsible for interpreting results in clinical laboratories in China and to improve the quality of interpretative comments. Methods Basic information and interpretative comments for five cases of 1912 routine chemistry External Quality Assessment (EQA) participant laboratories were collected by web-based EQA system in May 2018. EQA organizers assigned scores to each key phrase of comments based on predetermined marking scale and calculated total scores for each participant’s answer. Final scores and ranking were calculated according to scores of cases. Finally, we comprehensively analyzed the type of hospital and the professional title of participants. Results In total, 772 clinical laboratories, 1472 participants, from different Chinese provinces submitted interpretative comments. Median scores, interquartile ranges and score ranges of the five cases were 13 (11–15, 1–20), 13 (10–16, 0–20), 15 (12–17, 0–21), 7 (5–9, −2 to 14) and 12 (10–13, −2 to 18). The final scores and ranking of participants that came from tertiary hospitals were higher than those from secondary and other hospitals; however, there were no significant differences (0.774). When grouped by professional title, we found that although no significant variability existed among senior, intermediate, junior and others (0.699), it existed between laboratory physicians and technicians, as the median final scores of the former were higher than the latter. Conclusions Practice and quality of interpretative comments are indeed different among different laboratories and participants in China. Laboratories should train and assess the interpretative ability of personnel. EQA organizers should also improve the scoring method and establish peer assessors team through this survey.

Adding clinical utility to the laboratory reports: automation of interpretative comments

In laboratory medicine, consultation by adding interpretative comments to reports has long been recognized as one of the activities that help to improve patient treatment outcomes and strengthen the position of our profession. Interpretation and understanding of laboratory test results might in some cases considerably be enhanced by adding test when considered appropriate by the laboratory specialist – an activity that was named reflective testing. With patient material available at this stage, this might considerably improve the diagnostic efficiency. The need and value of these forms of consultation have been proven by a diversity of studies. Both general practitioners and medical specialists have been shown to value interpretative comments. Other forms of consultation are emerging: in this time of patient empowerment and shared decision making, reporting of laboratory results to patients will be common. Patients have in general little understanding of these results, and consultation of patients could add a new dimension to the service of the laboratory. These developments have been recognized by the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, which has established the working group on Patient Focused Laboratory Medicine for work on the matter. Providing proper interpretative comments is, however, labor intensive because harmonization is necessary to maintain quality between individual specialists. In present-day high-volume laboratories, there are few options on how to generate high-quality, patient-specific comments for all the relevant results without overwhelming the laboratory specialists. Automation and application of expert systems could be a solution, and systems have been developed that could ease this task.

Harmonization of interpretative comments in laboratory hematology reporting: the recommendations of Working Group on Diagnostic Hematology of the Italian Society of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (WGDH-SIBioC)

The goal of harmonizing laboratory testing is contributing to improving the quality of patient care and ultimately ameliorating patient outcome. The complete blood and leukocyte differential counts are among the most frequently requested clinical laboratory tests. The morphological assessment of peripheral blood cells (PB) through microscopic examination of properly stained blood smears is still considered a hallmark of laboratory hematology. Nevertheless, a variable inter-observer experience and the different terminology used for characterizing cellular abnormalities both contribute to the current lack of harmonization in blood smear revision. In 2014, the Working Group on Diagnostic Hematology of the Italian Society of Clinical Chemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (WGDH-SIBioC) conducted a national survey, collecting responses from 78 different Italian laboratories. The results of this survey highlighted a lack of harmonization of interpretative comments in hematology, which prompted the WGDH-SIBioC to develop a project on “Harmonization of interpretative comments in the laboratory hematology report”, aimed at identifying appropriate comments and proposing a standardized reporting system. The comments were then revised and updated according to the 2016 revision of the World Health Organization classification of hematologic malignancies. In summary, the purpose of revaluating comments was aimed at: (a) reducing their overall number, (b) standardizing the language, (c) providing information that could be easily comprehended by clinicians and patients, (d) increasing the quality of the clinical information, and (e) suggesting additional diagnostic tests when necessary.

Moving towards harmonized reporting of serum and urine protein electrophoresis

During the last decade, surveys by questionnaire in Canada, Australia and New Zealand revealed wide variation in reporting practices by laboratories and individual practitioners in the interpretation of serum and urine protein electrophoresis (PE). Such variation has potential to adversely impact patient outcomes if report structure is inconsistent or if the messaging is incorrectly perceived by the receiving physician. Concerted efforts have been initiated to promote harmonization in the use of interpretative comments. The primary goal is to add value through clear communication with requesting physicians in the interest of quality patient care. Resistance to a harmonized approach largely reflects longstanding personal reporting habits and preferences but change can be more readily embraced if the new system is intuitive, easy to use and saves time in reporting.

Assuring the quality of interpretative comments in clinical chemistry

The provision of interpretative advice on laboratory results is a post-analytic activity and an integral part of clinical laboratory services. It is valued by healthcare workers and has the potential to prevent or reduce errors and improve patient outcomes. It is important to ensure that interpretative comments provided by laboratory personnel are of high quality: comments should be patient-focused and answer the implicit or explicit question raised by the requesting clinician. Comment providers need to be adequately trained and qualified and be able to demonstrate their proficiency to provide advice on laboratory reports. External quality assessment (EQA) schemes can play a part in assessing and demonstrating the competence of such laboratory staff and have an important role in their education and continuing professional development. A standard structure is proposed for EQA schemes for interpretative comments in clinical chemistry, which addresses the scope and method of assessment including nomenclature and marking scales. There is a need for evidence that participation in an EQA program for interpretative commenting facilitates improved quality of comments. It is proposed that standardizing goals and methods of assessment as well as nomenclature and marking scales may help accumulate evidence to demonstrate the impact of participation in EQA for interpretative commenting on patient outcome.