Annals of Clinical Biochemistry > Volume 45, Number 1 > Pp. 88-90

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Barlow, I. M Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Short Report

Are biochemistry interpretative comments helpful? Results of a general practitioner and nurse practitioner survey

Ian M Barlow 

PathLinks Pathology Department, Scunthorpe General Hospital, Cliff Gardens, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire DN15 7BH, UK

Corresponding author: Ian M Barlow. Email: ian.barlow{at}nlg.nhs.uk

Background: Adding or incorporating clinical interpretative comments on biochemistry results is widespread in UK laboratories; although this consumes considerable human resource, there is still little evidence to suggest that it is either effective or appreciated by our clinical colleagues. I therefore decided to survey our local general practitioners (GPs) and nurse practitioners to analyse whether they found biochemistry comments on reports helpful.

Methods: A simple questionnaire was designed and sent to 159 GPs and 81 nurse practitioners asking them whether they found this activity useful for the limited range of test groups that we routinely comment on and also whether they would like to see commenting on more groups of tests.

Results: Overall, 49.6% of questionnaires were returned. Of these, there was overwhelming support for commenting on reports and 77% would like to see comments on a greater range of tests.

Conclusions: Although adding clinical interpretative comments is very time-consuming for senior laboratory staff, there is overwhelming support of this activity among our GPs and nurse practitioner users; therefore, our local policy of routinely adding clinical comments will remain for the foreseeable future.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				W. P H G Verboeket-van de Venne, W. P Oosterhuis, J. F W Keuren, and H. A Kleinveld Reflective testing in the Netherlands: usefulness to improve the diagnostic and therapeutic process in general practice Ann Clin Biochem, July 1, 2009; 46(4): 346 - 347. [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. M Barlow Do interpretative comments influence patient management and do our users approve of the laboratory 'adding on' requests? A follow-up General Practitioner and Nurse Practitioner survey Ann Clin Biochem, January 1, 2009; 46(1): 85 - 86. [Full Text] [PDF]