The assessment of in terpreta tion of test re sults in labora tory medicine;Procjena tumačenja rezultata pretraga u laboratorijskoj medicini

Biochemia Medica

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 146-153

  Challand, Gordon S ^a   Li, Ping ^b  

^a ROYAL BERKSHIRE HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^b SICHUAN UNIVERSITY   (China)

Author keywords

External Quality Assurance Schemes; Interpretation of results

Indexed keywords

CLINICAL ASSESSMENT; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; LABORATORY DIAGNOSIS; LABORATORY PERSONNEL; LABORATORY TEST; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUALITY CONTROL; QUESTIONNAIRE; REVIEW;

EID: 67649205767     PISSN: 13300962     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.11613/bm.2009.014     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Lippi G, Fostini R, Guidi GC. Quality improvement in laboratory medicine: extra-analytical issues. Clin Lab Med 2008;28:285-94.
2. PlebaniM. Laboratory errors: How to improve pre- and post-analytical phases? Biochemia Medica 2007; 17:5-9.
3. Freedman DB. Is the medical undergraduate curriculum 'fit for purpose'? Ann Clin Biochem 2008;45:1-2.
4. Simundic AM, Topic E. Quality indicators. Biochemia Medica 2008;18:311-9.
5. Kilpatrick ES, Barth JH. Whither clinical validation? Ann Clin Biochem 2006;43:171-2.
6. Barlow IM. Are biochemistry interpretative comments helpful? Results of a general practitioner and nurse practitioner survey. Ann Clin Biochem 2008;45:88-90.
7. Barlow IM. Do interpretative comments influence patient management and do our users approve of the laboratory 'adding on' requests? A follow-up on ?of? General Practitioner and Nurse Practitioner survey. Ann Clin Biochem 2009;46:65-86.
8. Sciavolli L, Zardo L, Secchiero S, Zaninotti M, Plebani M. Interpretative comments and reference ranges in EQA programs as a tool for improving laboratory appropriateness and effectiveness. Clin Chim Acta 2003;333:209-19.
9. Clinical Pathology Accreditation (UK). Standards for the medical laboratory.
10. Challand G. Cases for comment, education and audit. JIFCC 1998;10:53-5.
11. Challand GS, Osypiw JC, MacKenzie F, Middle JG, Fister D, Stezhka L. Web-based external quality assessment of individual skills - the UK NEQAS for interpretative comments in Clinical Chemistry. EuroMed-Lab2001, Prague, abstract S259
12. Vasikaran SD, Penberthy L, Gill J, Scott S, Sikaris KA. Review of a pilot Quality Assessment Program for interpretative commenting. Ann Clin Biochem 2002;39:261-72.
13. Lim EM, Sikaris KA, GillJ, CallejaJ, Hickman PE, BeilbyJ, Vasikaran SD. Quality assessment of interpretative commenting in Clinical Chemistry. Clin Chem 2004;50:632-37.
14. Challand GS, Vasikaran SD. The assessment of interpretation in Clinical Biochemistry: a personal view. Ann Clin Biochem 2007;44:101-5.
15. Challand GS. Assessing the quality of comments on reports: a retrospective study. Ann Clin Biochem 1999;36:316-32.
16. Li P, Challand GS. Experience with assessing the quality of comments on Clinical Biochemistry reports. Ann Clin Biochem 1999;36:759-65.
17. http://www.iso.org/iso/en/CatalogueDetailPage.Catalogue Detail?CS NUMBER=26301&COMMID=&scopelist=
18. Goldman RL. The reliability of peer assessments: a meta-analysis. Eval Health Prof 1994;17(1):3-21.
19. Bindels R, Hasman A, van Wersch JWJ, Pop, P, Winkens RAG. The reliability of assessing the appropriateness of requested diagnostic tests. Med Decis Making 2003;23:31-7.
20. Osypiw JC, Challand GS. 'Cases for Comment' on the ACB mailba-se: were they educational? Proceedings of the ACB National Meeting 2002:A105:p85.