Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros

Banco de datos
Tipo del documento
País de afiliación
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
J Pathol Inform ; 13: 100006, 2022.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35242445

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Point-of-care (POC) testing equipment is commonly utilized in outpatient clinics. Our institution recently interfaced POC chemistry and hematology devices at two outpatient clinics via middleware software to the central electronic health record (EHR), facilitating a comparison of manual transcription versus automatic reporting via interface. This allowed for estimation of serious/obvious error rates and manual time savings. Additional goals were to develop autoverification rules and analyze broad trends of results in response to common clinician complaints on the POC testing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data were obtained from two satellite clinic sites providing both primary and urgent care within an academic health system. Interface of devices was accomplished via Instrument Manager middleware software and occurred approximately halfway through the 38 month retrospective timeframe. Laboratory results for three testing POC chemistry and hematology panels were extracted with EHR tools. RESULTS: Nearly 100,000 lab values were analyzed and revealed that the rate of laboratory values outside reference range was essentially unchanged before and after interface of POC testing devices (2.0-2.1%). Serious/obvious errors, while rare overall, declined significantly, with none recorded after the interface with autoverified results and only three related to manual edits of results that failed autoverification. Fewer duplicated test results were identified after the interface, most notably with the hematology testing. Anion gap values of less than zero were observed more frequently in POC device tests when compared to central laboratory tests and are attributed to a higher proportion of Cl values greater than 110 mEq/L and CO2 values greater than 30 mEq/L with POC results. Time savings of eliminating manual data entry were calculated to be 21.6 employee hours per month. CONCLUSIONS: In a switch from manual entry to automatic interface for POC chemistry and hematology, the most notable changes were reduction of serious/obvious errors and duplicate results. Significant time employee time savings highlight an additional benefit of instrument interfacing. Lastly, a difference between POC and central laboratory instruments is a higher rate of high Cl and CO2 values relative to the central laboratory.

2.
Acad Pathol ; 5: 2374289518784222, 2018.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30023429

RESUMEN

Daylight saving time is a practice in some countries and local regions to set clocks forward (typically 1 hour) during the longer days of summer and back again in autumn. Time changes resulting from daylight saving time have the potential to impact clinical laboratory instruments, computer interfaces, and information systems. We analyzed turnaround time data for an academic medical center clinical laboratories (chemistry, hematology, blood gas analyzer, and transfusion medicine), examining how turnaround time was impacted by the daylight saving time shifts in 2017. We also determined whether the daylight saving time shift on November 5, 2017 ("fall back" by 1 hour) resulted in any "absurd" time combinations such as a receipt time occurring "before" a normally later time such as final result. We also describe challenges resulting from daylight saving time changes over a 5-year period. The only significant impact on turnaround time was for clinical chemistry samples during the autumn daylight saving time change, but the overall impact was low. Four instances of absurd time combinations occurred in the autumn time change with only a transfusion medicine example resulting in an interface error (a Type and Screen resulted "before" receipt in laboratory). Over a 5-year period, other daylight saving time impacts included problems of reestablishing interface to instruments, inadvertent discrepancies in manual time changes at different points of the core laboratory automation line, and time change errors in instruments with older operating systems lacking patches that updated daylight saving time rules after 2007. Clinical laboratories should be aware that rare problems may occur due to issues with daylight saving time changes.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA