Home Establishing, harmonizing and analyzing critical values in a large academic health center
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Establishing, harmonizing and analyzing critical values in a large academic health center

  • Ibrahim A. Hashim EMAIL logo and Jennifer A. Cuthbert
Published/Copyright: March 13, 2014

Abstract

Background: No report on establishing critical values (CVs) lists has described a process for harmonizing different lists in a large academic health center or validation on follow-up after 5 years.

Methods: A definition of a critical value was adopted. CVs in use and reporting times for chemistry, hematology and coagulation (CH&C) tests during a 1-week period at one hospital were analyzed prior to the revision and again 5 years later.

Results: CVs lists in use by the different campus hospital laboratories were reviewed for compliance with the definition for a critical value. Lists were harmonized with a total of 37 CH&C tests, five of these included adult and either cord blood or neonatal values. Overall, 26 tests were eliminated, 61 individual values were changed and two tests were added. The revised CVs list reduced the number of calls at one primary teaching hospital by 33%. In the next 5-year period, value thresholds changed (n=2) and one value was re-instated (n=1). When retrospectively examined for impact, one value change was considered appropriate.

Conclusions: CVs lists were harmonized among campus hospitals. Tests not considered critical were removed and values adjusted for uniformity. Changes in CVs lists should be evaluated for appropriateness. A process is now in place for periodic review and considerations related to CVs lists.


Corresponding author: Ibrahim A. Hashim, PhD, Department of Pathology, UT Southwestern Medical Center, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, Dallas, TX, USA, E-mail: ; and Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, TX, USA
aCritical Values Working Group members: Vicki Crane, Debbie Perrault, Donna Persaud MD, Noel Santini MD and John J. Shannon MD, Parkland Health and Hospital System, Dallas, TX, USA; James M. Alexander MD, Steven L. Bloom MD, Julie G. Champine MD, Carol C. Croft MD, Joseph P. Minei MD, Kyle Molberg MD and D. Brent Treichler MD, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA.

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ conflict of interest disclosure: The authors stated that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article.

Research funding: None declared.

Employment or leadership: None declared.

Honorarium: None declared.

Author contributions: Ibrahim Hashim – study design; acquisition of data; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of the manuscript; critical revision of the original manuscript for important intellectual content. Jennifer A. Cuthbert – study design; acquisition of data; review of clinical records; analysis and interpretation of data; drafting of the original manuscript; critical revision of the original manuscript for important intellectual content.

References

1. Lundberg GD. When to panic over abnormal values. Med Lab Obs 1972;4:47–54.Search in Google Scholar

2. Medicare, Medicaid, and CLIA Programs: laboratory requirements relating to quality systems and certain personnel qualifications. Fed Regist 2003;68:3639–714.Search in Google Scholar

3. The Joint Commission. Accreditation Program: Laboratory, National Patient Safety Goals (NPSG020301). Available from: http://www.jointcommission.org/standards_information/npsgs.aspx. Accessed 31 January, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

4. College of American Pathologists. Laboratory General Checklist [components GEN.41320, GEN.41330, and GEN.41340]. Available from: http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/pathology_reporting/LabGeneralChecklist_Reporting.pdf Accessed 31 January, 2014.Search in Google Scholar

5. Kost GJ. Critical limits for urgent clinician notification at US medical centers. J Am Med Assoc 1990;263:704–7.10.1001/jama.1990.03440050098042Search in Google Scholar

6. Kost GJ. Critical limits for emergency clinician notification at United States children′s hospitals. Pediatrics 1991;88: 597–603.10.1542/peds.88.3.597Search in Google Scholar

7. Howanitz PJ, Steindel SJ, Heard NV. Laboratory critical values policies and procedures: a college of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study in 623 institutions. Arch Pathol Lab Med 2002;126:663–9.10.5858/2002-126-0663-LCVPAPSearch in Google Scholar PubMed

8. Genzen JR, Tormey CA. Pathology consultation on reporting of critical values. Am J Clin Pathol 2011;135:505–13.10.1309/AJCP9IZT7BMBCJRSSearch in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

9. Zeng R, Wang W, Wang Z. National survey on critical values notification of 599 institutions in China. Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51:2099–107.10.1515/cclm-2013-0183Search in Google Scholar PubMed

10. Piva E, Plebani M. From “panic” to “critical” values: which path toward harmonization? Clin Chem Lab Med 2013;51: 2069–71.10.1515/cclm-2013-0459Search in Google Scholar PubMed

Received: 2014-1-7
Accepted: 2014-2-17
Published Online: 2014-3-13
Published in Print: 2014-8-1

©2014 by Walter de Gruyter Berlin/Boston

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Editorial
  3. Colorectal cancer and screening programs: not only analytical issues
  4. Reviews
  5. Laboratory diagnostics of inherited platelet disorders
  6. Reticulated platelets: analytical aspects and clinical utility
  7. Genetics and Molecular Diagnostics
  8. Advanced tools for BRCA1/2 mutational screening: comparison between two methods for large genomic rearrangements (LGRs) detection
  9. General Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine
  10. Establishing, harmonizing and analyzing critical values in a large academic health center
  11. Standardization of DiaSorin and Roche automated third generation PTH assays with an International Standard: impact on clinical populations
  12. First fully automated immunoassay for anti-Müllerian hormone
  13. A multicenter evaluation of dysthyroxinemia in a defined patient cohort
  14. New biomarkers in diagnosis of early onset preeclampsia and imminent delivery prognosis
  15. Soluble Fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 to placental growth factor ratio in mid-pregnancy as a predictor of preterm preeclampsia in asymptomatic pregnant women
  16. Development of a new immunoassay for the detection of ethyl glucuronide (EtG) in meconium: validation with authentic specimens analyzed using LC-MS/MS. Preliminary results
  17. Optimizing centrifugation of coagulation samples in laboratory automation
  18. Evaluation of the automated coagulation analyzer CS-5100 and its utility in high throughput laboratories
  19. A new sampling device for faecal immunochemical testing: haemoglobin stability is still an open issue
  20. Reference Values
  21. Faecal haemoglobin concentrations vary with sex and age, but data are not transferable across geography for colorectal cancer screening
  22. Cancer Diagnostics
  23. Enhanced miR-182 transcription is a predictor of poor overall survival in colorectal adenocarcinoma patients
  24. Importance of promoter methylation of GATA4 and TP53 genes in endometrioid carcinoma of endometrium
  25. Frequent methylation of HOXA9 gene in tumor tissues and plasma samples from human hepatocellular carcinomas
  26. Letters to the Editor
  27. Further comments on “Critical review of laboratory investigations in clinical practice guidelines: proposals for the description of investigation”
  28. A questionnaire study among nurses: awareness of blood and urine sample collection procedures
  29. Measurement uncertainty and clinical interpretation of measurement results
  30. Laboratory automation: how will you select the boarding assays?
  31. Improvement and evaluation of a 1,2-dioleoylglycerol method for measuring pancreatic lipase catalytic activity in serum
  32. The novel variant p.Ser465Leu in the PCSK9 gene does not account for the decreased LDLR activity in members of a FH family
  33. 1,5 Anhydroglucitol serum concentration as a biomarker for screening gestational diabetes in early pregnancy
  34. A rare condition: IgE type monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance
  35. Laboratory analysis of intraosseous blood: bad to the bone?
Downloaded on 10.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2014-0029/html
Scroll to top button