Search

Although laboratory result presentation may lead to information overload and subsequent missed or delayed diagnosis, little has been done in the past to improve this post-analytical issue. We aimed to investigate the efficiency, efficacy and user satisfaction of alternative report formats. We redesigned cumulative (sparkline format) and single reports (improved tabular and z-log format) and tested these on 46 physicians, nurses and medical students in comparison to the classical tabular formats, by asking standardized questions on general items on the reports as well as on suspected diagnosis and follow-up treatment or diagnostics. Efficacy remained at a very high level both in the new formats as well as in the classical formats. We found no significant difference in any of the groups. Efficiency improved in all groups when using the sparkline cumulative format and marginally when showing the improved tabular format. When asking medical questions, efficiency and efficacy remained similar between report formats and groups. All alternative reports were subjectively more attractive to the majority of participants. Showing cumulative reports as a graphical display led to faster detection of general information on the report with the same level of correctness. Considering the familiarity bias of the classical single report formats, the borderline-significant improvement of the alternative tabular format and the non-inferiority of the z-log format, suggests that single reports might benefit from some improvements derived from basic information design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

European Union (EU) Directive 2013/55/EC (The Recognition of Professional Qualifications) allows Member States to decide on a common set of minimum knowledge, skills and competences that are needed to pursue a given profession through a Common Training Framework. To be adopted the framework must combine the knowledge, skills and competences of at least one third of the Member States. Professionals who have gained their qualifications under a Common Training Framework will be able to have these recognised automatically within the Union. The backbone of the European Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine's (EFLM) proposed Common Training Framework for non-medical Specialists in Laboratory Medicine is outlined here. It is based on an Equivalence of Standards in education, training, qualifications, knowledge, skills, competences and the professional conduct associated with specialist practice. In proposing the recognition of specialist practice EFLM has identified 15 EU Member States able to meet Equivalence and in whom the profession and/or its training is regulated (an additional EU Commission requirement). The framework supports and contributes to the Directive's enabling goals for increasing professional mobility, safeguarding consumers and ensuring a more equitable distribution of skills and expertise across the Member States. It represents EFLM's position statement and provides a template for professional societies and/or competent authorities to engage with the EU Commission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The ultimate goal of harmonization, crucial to quality in laboratory medicine, is to improve patient outcomes by providing accurate, actionable laboratory information. Patients and healthcare professionals assume that clinical laboratory tests performed by different laboratories at different times on the same type of sample are comparable, and that results can be reliably and consistently interpreted. In this context the reporting units for tests can have a considerable influence on the numeric result. The harmonization of measurement units in laboratory report, leads to the provision of interchangeable and comparable results, thus maximizing the validity of laboratory information, and assuring a more accurate diagnosis and better treatment for the patient. However, although considerable efforts have been made in recent years, the criticisms continue. This opinion paper, prepared jointly by EFLM Committee Harmonization (C-H) and Committee Postanalytical phase (C-POST), describes the “general pragmatic approach” proposed in the drafting of guidelines for the harmonization of measurement units in reporting results, in order to ensure they are used as widely as possible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]