Clinical Chemistry AACC Online Job Center
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Clinical Chemistry 44: 1597-1603, 1998;
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit an electronic Letter to
the Editor about this paper
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (29)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kilgore, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, J. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kilgore, M. L.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, J. A.
Related Collections
Right arrow Evidence Based Laboratory Medicine and Test Utilization
(Clinical Chemistry. 1998;44:1597-1603.)
© 1998 American Association for Clinical Chemistry, Inc.

Test Utilization and Outcomes

Evaluating stat testing options in an academic health center: therapeutic turnaround time and staff satisfaction

Meredith L. Kilgore1,a, Steven J. Steindel2, and John A. Smith1

1 Department of Pathology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AL 35233-7331.

2 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30341-3724.
a Address correspondence to this author at: Department of Pathology, Division of Laboratory Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, P230 West Pavilion, 619 South 19th Street, Birmingham, AL 35233-7331.

We compared centralized vs distributed methods for delivering "stat" test results for blood gas, glucose, and electrolyte assays. The parameters for comparison were as follows: (a) laboratory turnaround time (TAT), (b) therapeutic TAT, and (c) staff satisfaction. Therapeutic TAT, defined as the time from the initiating order to the receipt of the result and the implementation of any indicated change in treatment, was obtained by direct observation of testing procedures at the bedside and timing each step in the process. Observing therapeutic TAT yields information on the impact of laboratory testing methods in the context of clinical decision making. Therapeutic TAT was 1–2 min shorter for bedside testing compared with a satellite laboratory and 9–14 min shorter in the satellite laboratory compared with centralized testing. Satellite laboratories received the highest staff satisfaction scores, followed by bedside testing, with the central laboratory receiving the lowest scores.




The following articles in journals at HighWire Press have cited this article:


Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
O. Sanehi, U. R. Jahn, and H. Van Aken
Near-patient testing
Br. J. Anaesth., October 1, 2003; 91(4): 608 - 608.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Br J AnaesthHome page
U. R. Jahn and H. Van Aken
Editorial I: Near-patient testing--point-of-care or point of costs and convenience?
Br. J. Anaesth., April 1, 2003; 90(4): 425 - 427.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
M. G. Scott
Faster Is Better--It’s Rarely That Simple!
Clin. Chem., April 1, 2000; 46(4): 441 - 442.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Clin. Chem.Home page
P. M. Rainey
Outcomes Assessment for Point-of-Care Testing
Clin. Chem., August 1, 1998; 44(8): 1595 - 1596.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1998 by the American Association for Clinical Chemistry.