2026-04-29T16:56:11Zhttps://repisalud.isciii.es/rest/oai/request
oai:repisalud.isciii.es:20.500.12105/226762024-09-22T09:25:45Zcom_20.500.12105_15322com_20.500.12105_2051col_20.500.12105_16967
Repisalud author Delgado Rodriguez, Jose A author Pastor Garcia, Maria I author Gómez Cobo, Cristina author Pons Mas, Antonia R author Llompart Alabern, Isabel author Bauça, Josep Miquel 2024-09-10T13:07:00Z 2024-09-10T13:07:00Z 2019-10 Delgado Rodriguez JA, Pastor Garcia MI, Gomez Cobo C, Pons Mas AR, Llompart Alabern I, Bauça JM. Assessment of a laboratory critical risk result notification protocol in a tertiary care hospital and their use in clinical decision making. Biochem Medica. 2019 Oct;29(3):30703. Epub 2019 Aug 5. 10.11613/BM.2019.030703 1846-7482 1330-0962 Biochemia Medica http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.13003/14587 31379461 L2002777913 2-s2.0-85071167967 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12105/22676 489300500007 Introduction: Communication of laboratory critical risk results is essential for patient safety, as it allows early decision making. Our aims were: 1) to retrospectively evaluate the current protocol for telephone notification of critical risk results in terms of rates, efficiency and recipient satisfaction, 2) to assess their use in clinical decision making and 3) to suggest alternative tools for a better assessment of notification protocols. Materials and methods: The biochemical critical risk result notifications reported during 12 months by routine and STAT laboratories in a tertiary care hospital were reviewed. Total number of reports, time for the notification and main magnitudes with critical risk results were calculated. The use of notifications in clinical decision making was assessed by reviewing medical records. Satisfaction with the notification protocol was assessed through an online questionnaire to requesting physicians and nurses. Results: Critical result was yielded by 0.1% of total laboratory tests. Median time for notification was 3.2 min (STAT) and 16.9 min (routine). The magnitudes with a greater number of critical results were glucose and potassium for routine analyses, and troponin, sodium for STAT. Most notifications were not reflected in the medical records. Overall mean satisfaction with the protocol was 4.2/5. Conclusion: The results obtained indicate that the current protocol is appropriate. Nevertheless, there are some limitations that hamper the evaluation of the impact on clinical decision making. Alternatives were proposed for a proper and precise evaluation. eng Phone notification Turnaround time Clinical decision making Critical risk result Assessment of a laboratory critical risk result notification protocol in a tertiary care hospital and their use in clinical decision making research article