Anatomy and history of an external quality assessment program for interpretative comments in clinical biochemistry

Clinical Biochemistry

Volumn 48, Issue 7-8, 2015, Pages 467-471

  Vasikaran, Samuel D ^a,b  

^a PATHWEST LABORATORY MEDICINE   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

Clinical biochemistry; Clinical chemistry; Continuing professional development; Interpretative commenting; Quality assessment

Indexed keywords

BIOCHEMISTRY; CLINICAL CHEMISTRY;

BIOCHEMISTRY; CHEMISTRY, CLINICAL;

EID: 84940001391     PISSN: 00099120     EISSN: 18732933     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.clinbiochem.2014.12.014     Document Type: Review

References (17)

1. Wood K., van Heyningen C. Junior doctors' use of the clinical biochemistry service. Ann Clin Biochem 2009, 46:82.
2. Barlow I.M. Are biochemistry interpretative comments helpful? Results of a general practitioner and nurse practitioner survey. Ann Clin Biochem 2008, 45:88-90.
3. Vasikaran S.D., Penberthy L., Gill J., Scott S., Sikaris K.A. Review of a pilot quality assessment program for interpretative commenting. Ann Clin Biochem 2002, 39:261-272.
4. Lim E.M., Sikaris K.A., Gill J., Calleja J., Hickman P.E., Beilby J., et al. Quality assessment of interpretative commenting in clinical chemistry. Clin Chem 2004, 50:632-637.
5. Marshall W.J., Challand G.S. Provision of interpretative comments on biochemical report forms. Ann Clin Biochem 2000, 37:758-763.
6. Vasikaran S. Interpretative commenting. Clin Biochem Rev 2008, 29(Suppl. 1):S99-S103.
7. Plebani M. Interpretative commenting: a tool for improving the laboratory-clinical interface. Clin Chim Acta 2009, 404:46-51.
8. Kilpatrick E.S., Freedman D.B., National Clinical Biochemistry Audit Group A national survey of interpretative reporting in the UK. Ann Clin Biochem 2011, 48:317-320.
9. Kilpatrick E. Best Practice when providing interpretative comments on laboratory medicine reports accessed at. http://acb61.acb.org.uk/docs/default-source/committees/scientific/guidelines/acb/best-practice-when-providing-interpretative-comments-for-laboratory-medicine---final.pdf?sfvrsn=2.
10. Lim E., Vasikaran S.D., Gill J., Calleja J., Hickman P.E., Beilby J., et al. A discussion of cases in the 2001 RCPA-AQAP Chemical Pathology Case Report Comments Program. Pathology 2003, 35:145-150.
11. Li P., Challand G.S. Experience with assessing the quality of comments on clinical biochemistry reports. Ann Clin Biochem 1999, 36:759-765.
12. Challand G.S., Vasikaran S.D. The assessment of interpretation in clinical biochemistry: a personal view. Ann Clin Biochem 2007, 44:101-105.
13. Laposata M. Patient-specific narrative interpretations of complex clinical laboratory evaluations: who is competent to provide them?. Clin Chem 2004, 471-472.
14. Coulson C., Kelly A.-M. Interpretative Comments Scheme Comes of Age. ACB News 2011, 576:23.
15. UKNEQAS website accessed at. http://www.birminghamquality.org.uk/49.html.
16. Kilpatrick E.S. Can the addition of interpretative comments to laboratory reports influence outcome? An example involving patients taking thyroxine. Ann Clin Biochem 2004, 41:227-229.
17. Bell D.A., Bender R., Hooper A.J., McMahon J., Edwards G., van Bockxmeer F.M., et al. Impact of interpretative commenting on lipid profiles in people at high risk of familial hypercholesterolaemia. Clin Chim Acta 2013, 422:21-25.