Presentation and formatting of laboratory results: a narrative review on behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group "postanalytical phase" (WG-POST).

In laboratory medicine, much effort has been put into analytical quality in the past decades, making this medical profession one of the most standardized with the lowest rates of error. However, even the best analytical quality cannot compensate for errors or low quality in the pre or postanalytical...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences Vol. 58; no. 5; pp. 329 - 354
Autores principales: Cadamuro, Janne, Hillarp, Andreas, Unger, Axel, von Meyer, Alexander, Bauçà, Josep Miquel, Plekhanova, Olga, Linko-Parvinen, Anna, Watine, Joseph, Leichtle, Alexander, Buchta, Christoph, Haschke-Becher, Elisabeth, Eisl, Christoph, Winzer, Johannes, Kristoffersen, Ann Helen
Formato: review tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Taylor & Francis Ltd Aug2021
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=151582258&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 151582258
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10408363
        1AV
      jtl: Critical Reviews in Clinical Laboratory Sciences
      issn: 10408363
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Aug2021
      vid: 58
      iid: 5
      pid: 377
      pub: Taylor & Francis Ltd
      place: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    artinfo:
      ui:
        151582258
        148491586
        151582258
        151582258
        10.1080/10408363.2020.1867051
        151582258
      ppf: 329
      ppct: 25
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Presentation and formatting of laboratory results: a narrative review on behalf of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (EFLM) Working Group "postanalytical phase" (WG-POST).
      aug:
        au:
          Cadamuro, Janne
          Hillarp, Andreas
          Unger, Axel
          von Meyer, Alexander
          Bauçà, Josep Miquel
          Plekhanova, Olga
          Linko-Parvinen, Anna
          Watine, Joseph
          Leichtle, Alexander
          Buchta, Christoph
          Haschke-Becher, Elisabeth
          Eisl, Christoph
          Winzer, Johannes
          Kristoffersen, Ann Helen
        affil: Department of Laboratory Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University, Salzburg, Austria
      sug:
        subj:
          Diagnosis, Laboratory
          Reference Values Standards
          Decision Making, Clinical
          Decision Support Systems, Clinical
          Clinical Laboratory Information Systems
          Electronic Health Records
          Point-of-Care Testing
      ab: In laboratory medicine, much effort has been put into analytical quality in the past decades, making this medical profession one of the most standardized with the lowest rates of error. However, even the best analytical quality cannot compensate for errors or low quality in the pre or postanalytical phase of the total testing process. Guidelines for data reporting focus solely on defined data elements, which have to be provided alongside the analytical test results. No guidelines on how to format laboratory reports exist. The habit of reporting as much diagnostic data as possible, including supplemental information, may lead to an information overload. Considering the multiple tasks physicians have to do simultaneously, unfiltered data presentation may contribute to patient risk, as important information may be overlooked, or juxtaposition errors may occur. As laboratories should aim to answer clinical questions, rather than providing sole analytical results, optimizing formatting options may help improve the effectiveness and efficiency of medical decision-making. In this narrative review, we focus on the underappreciated topic of laboratory result reporting. We present published literature, focusing on the impact of laboratory result report formatting on medical decisions as well as approaches, potential benefits, and limitations for alternative report formats. We discuss influencing variables such as, for example, the type of patient (e.g. acute versus chronic), the medical specialty of the recipient of the report, the display of reference intervals, the medium or platform on which the laboratory report is presented (printed paper, within electronic health record systems, on handheld devices, etc.), the context in which the report is viewed in, and difficulties in formatting single versus cumulative reports. Evidence on this topic, especially experimental studies, is scarce. When considering the medical impact, it is of utmost importance that laboratories focus not only on the analytical aspects but on the total testing process. The achievement of high analytical quality may be of minor value if essential results get lost in overload or scattering of information by using a non-formatted tabular design. More experimental studies to define guidelines and to standardize effective and efficient reporting are most definitely needed.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        review
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N