↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Hematology point of care testing and laboratory errors: an example of multidisciplinary management at a children's hospital in northeast Italy

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, January 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
27 Mendeley
Title
Hematology point of care testing and laboratory errors: an example of multidisciplinary management at a children's hospital in northeast Italy
Published in
Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare, January 2014
DOI 10.2147/jmdh.s53904
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sergio Parco, Patrizia Visconti, Fulvia Vascotto

Abstract

Involvement of health personnel in a medical audit can reduce the number of errors in laboratory medicine. The checked control of point of care testing (POCT) could be an answer to developing a better medical service in the emergency department and decreasing the time taken to report tests. The performance of sanitary personnel from different disciplines was studied over an 18-month period in a children's hospital. Clinical errors in the emergency and laboratory departments were monitored by: nursing instruction using specific courses, POCT, and external quality control; improvement of test results and procedural accuracy; and reduction of hemolyzed and nonprotocol-conforming samples sent to the laboratory department. In January 2012, point of care testing (POCT) was instituted in three medical units (neonatology, resuscitation, delivery room) at the Children's Hospital in Trieste, northeast Italy, for analysis of hematochemical samples. In the same period, during the months of January 2012 and June 2013, 1,600 samples sent to central laboratory and their related preanalytical errors were examined for accuracy. External quality control for POCT was also monitored in the emergency department; three meetings were held with physicians, nurses, and laboratory technicians to highlight problems, ie, preanalytical errors and analytical methodologies associated with POCT. During the study, there was an improvement in external quality control for POCT from -3 or -2 standard deviations or more to one standard deviation for all parameters. Of 800 samples examined in the laboratory in January 2012, we identified 64 preanalytical errors (8.0%); in June 2013, there were 17 preanalytical errors (2.1%), representing a significant decrease (P<0.05, χ(2) test). Multidisciplinary management and clinical audit can be used as tools to detect errors caused by organizational problems outside the laboratory and improve clinical and economic outcomes.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 27 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 27 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 26%
Student > Master 5 19%
Other 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 11%
Student > Postgraduate 2 7%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 37%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 11%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Computer Science 1 4%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 6 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 February 2014.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#601
of 1,001 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#202,808
of 319,271 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Multidisciplinary Healthcare
#12
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,001 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 319,271 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.