...
首页> 外文期刊>Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine: CCLM >Quality of interpretative commenting on common clinical chemistry results in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa.
【24h】

Quality of interpretative commenting on common clinical chemistry results in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa.

机译:关于亚太地区和非洲常见临床化学结果的解释性评论的质量。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

BACKGROUND: Interpretative commenting is an important activity of the clinical diagnostic laboratory. We describe a study of interpretative commenting abilities among senior laboratory professionals in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. METHODS: Five sets of laboratory results reflecting common and important problems encountered in clinical chemistry were distributed at 4-weekly intervals to 31 registered participants from countries in the Asia-Pacific region and Africa. Participants were asked to attach an interpretative comment to the results assuming that the requesting doctor had asked for an interpretation of the result. RESULTS: Twelve pathologists and 19 scientists from seven countries registered to participate and the overall reply rate was approximately 50% for the five cases. The quality of the comments returned by participants was diverse and some reflected incorrect or misleading interpretation and advice. CONCLUSIONS: While interpretative commenting is an important laboratory activity, the results of this study suggest that there is room for improvement in the quality of interpretative comments offered by senior laboratory professionals, even for commonly reported results relating to most prevalent and important public health conditions. Interpretative commenting should be formally taught during training of pathologists and scientists, and continuing professional development in this area is required for the provision of a quality interpretative service.
机译:背景:解释性评论是临床诊断实验室的一项重要活动。我们描述了对亚太地区和非洲的高级实验室专业人士的解释性评论能力的研究。方法:五组反映临床化学中常见和重要问题的实验室结果每4周一次分发给来自亚太地区和非洲国家的31名注册参与者。假设要求医生要求对结果进行解释,则要求参与者对结果进行解释性注释。结果:来自七个国家的12位病理学家和19位科学家报名参加,这5例病例的总体答复率约为50%。参与者返回的评论质量参差不齐,其中一些反映了不正确或误导性的解释和建议。结论:虽然解释性评论是一项重要的实验室活动,但这项研究的结果表明,即使是与最普遍和重要的公共卫生状况相关的普遍报道的结果,高级实验室专业人员提供的解释性评论的质量仍有改善的空间。在病理学家和科学家的培训期间,应该正式教授解释性评论,并且在这一领域需要持续的专业发展才能提供高质量的解释服务。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号