AI Article Synopsis

Article Abstract

Aims: To determine how emergency departments in England process laboratory investigation results, to identify risk, and to note examples of good practice.

Methods: A telephone survey was conducted, and data were entered anonymously into Excel spreadsheets. Fisher's exact test was used to test the independence of pairs of variables.

Results: Data were collected from 167 out of 193 (87%) emergency departments in England. The majority had nurse-requested blood tests. There was a statistical association between nurse-requesting and failure by the clinician seeing the patient to check results. Fourteen (8%) departments did not allow patients to leave until all their results were available. A senior doctor did a second 'safety' check of results in 83 (50%) departments. Many respondents were able to give examples of patients who had been recalled to hospital after a second check. Only a minority of departments had information systems that could identify high-risk patients.

Conclusion: A second 'safety' check by an experienced consultant, associate specialist or middle grade doctor identifies error. This is time-consuming, but could be supported and simplified by using intelligently designed information systems.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/MEJ.0b013e3283440e72DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

emergency departments
12
departments england
12
england process
8
process laboratory
8
second 'safety'
8
'safety' check
8
departments
5
laboratory investigations?
4
investigations? aims
4
aims determine
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!