Results of Laboratory Tests not Accessed in Brazilian Private Laboratories.

BACKGROUND: Laboratory medicine is an important part of the healthcare system and directly contributes to preventive actions, diagnostics, treatment, and management of diseases. The level and quality of the utilization of laboratory resources have been frequently questioned. A dissemination of conflicting data regarding the quantity of laboratory tests not accessed by the requesting doctors or by the patients themselves is observed, although very often the sources and methodologies used to raise those numbers are not properly clarified. The objective of this study was to obtain data about access to results of tests taken in Brazilian private clinical analysis laboratories which use the laboratory information system developed by SHIFT Consultoria e Sistemas. METHODS: Information was extracted from 81 laboratories, which were responsible for the performance of 93,240,651 tests, collected from 7,067,087 patients. RESULTS: The total number of tests not accessed, considering all the regions, was 5,071,454, corresponding to a proportion of 5.4%. In the face of the potential risks of adverse events or impacts in the management of diagnostics and treatments, including economic impacts due to prolonged hospitalization time, the proportion of 17.9% which was found corresponding to tests "not accessed" showing "abnormal" results, is worrisome, mainly if we observe that of those, 2.5% were related to "abnormal" test results processed by laboratories which work in hospital care. CONCLUSIONS: SBPC/ML, in face of the relevance of the theme, will keep stimulating the monitoring and utilization of adequate laboratory resources, in order to allow sustainable healthcare systems.

Clinical Applications of Point-of-Care Testing in Different Conditions.

BACKGROUND: The use of point-of-care testing (POCT) in different clinical applications is justified by the fact that the time to release the result is shortened, allowing the physician to define the diagnosis and most appropriate therapy in a shorter time. However, the negative aspects must also be highlighted and studied so that we can move forward with the use of these devices. These negative aspects include greater analytical imprecision compared to laboratory automation, the variability between different equipment from different manufacturers, the risk of inappropriate use, a low level of global regulation, higher costs compared with laboratory testing and cost ineffectiveness in terms of health care. Methods and. RESULTS: This review presents some clinical applications of POCT in different scenarios, such as for diabetes mellitus, infectious diseases, pediatrics, and chronic kidney disease, among others. CONCLUSIONS: We hope to see a global consensus on an acceptable quality standard for performing POCT that is adaptable, practical, and cost effective in primary care settings, ensuring patient safety, and minimizing the risk of harm.

Point-of-Care Testing: General Aspects.

Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) has been highlighted in the health care sector in recent decades. On the other hand, due to its low demand, POCT is at a disadvantage compared to conventional equipment, since its cost is inversely proportional to the volume of use. In addition, for the implementation of POCT to succeed, it is essential to rely on the work of a multidisciplinary team. The awareness of health professionals of the importance of each step is perhaps the critical success factor. The trend towards the continuous advancement of the use of POCT and the great potential of its contributions reinforce the need to implement quality management tools, including performance indicators, to ensure their results. This review presents some advantages and disadvantages concerning POCT and the real need to use it. A worldwide call for the availability of easy-to-use health technologies that are increasingly closer to the final user is one of the main reasons for this focus.

Harmonization of quality indicators in laboratory medicine. A preliminary consensus.

Quality indicators (QIs) are fundamental tools for enabling users to quantify the quality of all operational processes by comparing it against a defined criterion. QIs data should be collected over time to identify, correct, and continuously monitor defects and improve performance and patient safety by identifying and implementing effective interventions. According to the international standard for medical laboratories accreditation, the laboratory shall establish and periodically review QIs to monitor and evaluate performance throughout critical aspects of pre-, intra-, and post-analytical processes. However, while some interesting programs on indicators in the total testing process have been developed in some countries, there is no consensus for the production of joint recommendations focusing on the adoption of universal QIs and common terminology in the total testing process. A preliminary agreement has been achieved in a Consensus Conference organized in Padua in 2013, after revising the model of quality indicators (MQI) developed by the Working Group on "Laboratory Errors and Patient Safety" of the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (IFCC). The consensually accepted list of QIs, which takes into consideration both their importance and applicability, should be tested by all potentially interested clinical laboratories to identify further steps in the harmonization project.