Assessment of critical values policies in Italian institutions: Comparison with the US situation

Elisa Piva, Laura Sciacovelli, Michael Laposata, Mario Plebani

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

38 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Critical value reporting is considered an essential tool to ensure the quality of medical laboratory services. Important issues include defining cut-off values, assessing responsibility for communication and adopting information technology solutions to improve notification. Here, we report the state of critical value reporting in a large cohort of Italian laboratories and comparison with Q-Probes surveys from the College of American Pathologists as representatives of the US situation. Methods: To compare critical value policies and procedures, formulation of critical values list with critical values limits and monitoring tools, a web-based questionnaire was formulated for 389 institutions participating in the External Quality Assessment Schemes of Veneto Region, in Italy. Results: A total of 90 clinical laboratories submitted data. Accredited laboratories represented 82.2% of participants, but written procedures for reporting were indicated by 70.5% of participants. Relevant differences between US and Italian policies have been observed, particularly regarding who provides the notification and on the formulation of the cut-off threshold for critical values. Conclusions: Accreditation according to international standards can decrease differences regarding the management of critical values across laboratories of different countries. However, the issues concerning critical limits should be debated and a consensus critical values list should be considered. Automated systems could offer improvements regarding some issues, such as who makes the notification, reducing the time spent in notification of critical values. Surveys for comparing and improving existing policies regarding critical values should be promoted at an international level.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)461-468
Number of pages8
JournalClinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Volume48
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Clinical laboratories
Accreditation
Italy
Information technology
Consensus
Communication
Technology
Monitoring
Surveys and Questionnaires
Laboratory Critical Values
Pathologists

Keywords

  • Automated notification
  • Critical values
  • Patient safety
  • Policies and procedures
  • Result communication

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Biochemistry
  • Biochemistry, medical

Cite this

Assessment of critical values policies in Italian institutions : Comparison with the US situation. / Piva, Elisa; Sciacovelli, Laura; Laposata, Michael; Plebani, Mario.

In: Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Vol. 48, No. 4, 04.2010, p. 461-468.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{7ab67c91b5374eb0a2f917608e8443df,
title = "Assessment of critical values policies in Italian institutions: Comparison with the US situation",
abstract = "Background: Critical value reporting is considered an essential tool to ensure the quality of medical laboratory services. Important issues include defining cut-off values, assessing responsibility for communication and adopting information technology solutions to improve notification. Here, we report the state of critical value reporting in a large cohort of Italian laboratories and comparison with Q-Probes surveys from the College of American Pathologists as representatives of the US situation. Methods: To compare critical value policies and procedures, formulation of critical values list with critical values limits and monitoring tools, a web-based questionnaire was formulated for 389 institutions participating in the External Quality Assessment Schemes of Veneto Region, in Italy. Results: A total of 90 clinical laboratories submitted data. Accredited laboratories represented 82.2{\%} of participants, but written procedures for reporting were indicated by 70.5{\%} of participants. Relevant differences between US and Italian policies have been observed, particularly regarding who provides the notification and on the formulation of the cut-off threshold for critical values. Conclusions: Accreditation according to international standards can decrease differences regarding the management of critical values across laboratories of different countries. However, the issues concerning critical limits should be debated and a consensus critical values list should be considered. Automated systems could offer improvements regarding some issues, such as who makes the notification, reducing the time spent in notification of critical values. Surveys for comparing and improving existing policies regarding critical values should be promoted at an international level.",
keywords = "Automated notification, Critical values, Patient safety, Policies and procedures, Result communication",
author = "Elisa Piva and Laura Sciacovelli and Michael Laposata and Mario Plebani",
year = "2010",
month = "4",
doi = "10.1515/CCLM.2010.096",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "48",
pages = "461--468",
journal = "Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine",
issn = "1434-6621",
publisher = "Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Assessment of critical values policies in Italian institutions

T2 - Comparison with the US situation

AU - Piva, Elisa

AU - Sciacovelli, Laura

AU - Laposata, Michael

AU - Plebani, Mario

PY - 2010/4

Y1 - 2010/4

N2 - Background: Critical value reporting is considered an essential tool to ensure the quality of medical laboratory services. Important issues include defining cut-off values, assessing responsibility for communication and adopting information technology solutions to improve notification. Here, we report the state of critical value reporting in a large cohort of Italian laboratories and comparison with Q-Probes surveys from the College of American Pathologists as representatives of the US situation. Methods: To compare critical value policies and procedures, formulation of critical values list with critical values limits and monitoring tools, a web-based questionnaire was formulated for 389 institutions participating in the External Quality Assessment Schemes of Veneto Region, in Italy. Results: A total of 90 clinical laboratories submitted data. Accredited laboratories represented 82.2% of participants, but written procedures for reporting were indicated by 70.5% of participants. Relevant differences between US and Italian policies have been observed, particularly regarding who provides the notification and on the formulation of the cut-off threshold for critical values. Conclusions: Accreditation according to international standards can decrease differences regarding the management of critical values across laboratories of different countries. However, the issues concerning critical limits should be debated and a consensus critical values list should be considered. Automated systems could offer improvements regarding some issues, such as who makes the notification, reducing the time spent in notification of critical values. Surveys for comparing and improving existing policies regarding critical values should be promoted at an international level.

AB - Background: Critical value reporting is considered an essential tool to ensure the quality of medical laboratory services. Important issues include defining cut-off values, assessing responsibility for communication and adopting information technology solutions to improve notification. Here, we report the state of critical value reporting in a large cohort of Italian laboratories and comparison with Q-Probes surveys from the College of American Pathologists as representatives of the US situation. Methods: To compare critical value policies and procedures, formulation of critical values list with critical values limits and monitoring tools, a web-based questionnaire was formulated for 389 institutions participating in the External Quality Assessment Schemes of Veneto Region, in Italy. Results: A total of 90 clinical laboratories submitted data. Accredited laboratories represented 82.2% of participants, but written procedures for reporting were indicated by 70.5% of participants. Relevant differences between US and Italian policies have been observed, particularly regarding who provides the notification and on the formulation of the cut-off threshold for critical values. Conclusions: Accreditation according to international standards can decrease differences regarding the management of critical values across laboratories of different countries. However, the issues concerning critical limits should be debated and a consensus critical values list should be considered. Automated systems could offer improvements regarding some issues, such as who makes the notification, reducing the time spent in notification of critical values. Surveys for comparing and improving existing policies regarding critical values should be promoted at an international level.

KW - Automated notification

KW - Critical values

KW - Patient safety

KW - Policies and procedures

KW - Result communication

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77949841481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77949841481&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1515/CCLM.2010.096

DO - 10.1515/CCLM.2010.096

M3 - Article

C2 - 20128733

AN - SCOPUS:77949841481

VL - 48

SP - 461

EP - 468

JO - Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

JF - Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine

SN - 1434-6621

IS - 4

ER -