![]()
32
| 2 | 2005
Klinisk Biokemi i Norden
and utterly time-consuming if done manually, and
the autoverification program works consistently
handling all results in the same way. In contrast,
the quality and speed of manual verification varies
from person to person and from time to time.
We started with autoverification percentages
ranging between 50 and 60% and have achieved
an autoverification percentage of 86%. In our
opinion, it can still be increased without sacrific-
ing the reliability of the test results. We are con-
stantly monitoring the autoverification process and
modifying the rule sets when we notice that some
unacceptable results have been released as well as
when we notice that perfectly acceptable results are
being rejected. Continuously adjusting and modify-
ing the autoverification rule sets is easy because the
rule sets are completely user-customizable and can
even be edited on the fly without interfering with
production.
References
1 Bonini P, Plebani M, Ceriotti F, Rubboli F.
Errors in laboratory medicine. Clin Chem.
2002; 48: 691-698
2 Proceedings of the 1996 Clinical Chemistry
Forum “Quality for Tomorrow.” Clin Chem.
1997; 43:864-912.
3 Linda T. Kohn, Janet M. Corrigan, and Molla
S. Donaldson, Editors; Committee on Quality
of Health Care in America, Institute of
Medicine. To Err Is Human: Building a Safer
Health System (2000). ISBN 0-309-06837-1
4 2005 Joint Commission National Patient
Safety Goals: Practical strategies and helpful
solutions for meeting these goals. Patient
Safety. Joint Commission Resources, 2004;
Vol.4; 9: 1-15.
5 Krouwer JS. An improved failure mode effects
analysis for hospitals. Arch Pathol Lab Med.
2004; Vol 128: 663-667.
6 Boone DJ. Assessing Laboratory Employee
Competence. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2000;
124: 190-191.
7 Goldschmidt HMJ. A review of autoverifica-
tion software in laboratory medicine. Accred
Qual Assur. 2002; 7: 431-440.
8 Lundberg GC. Acting on significant labo-
ratory results. J Amer Med Assoc. 1981;
245(17):1762-3.
9 Valdiguie PM, Rogari E, Corberand JX, Boneu
B. The performance of the knowledge-based
system VALAB revisited: an evaluation after
five years. Eur J Clin Chem Clin Biochem
1996; 34(4): 371-376
10 Oosterhuis WP, Ulenkate HJLM, Goldschmidt
HMJ. Evaluation of LabRespond, a new auto-
mated verification system for clinical labo-
ratory test results. Clin Chem 2000;46:1811-
1817.
11 Southwick K. Expert systems a feast for lea-
ner laboratories. CAP Today. 2002; (1): 1-6.
(Fortsat fra side 31)
