PubMed · 5540863
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
C D Russell. 1971-02-11. Reporting laboratory tests.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/5540863/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The patient population at risk for opportunistic pulmonary infections has increased during the last decade. The spectrum of organisms causing opportunistic infections has also grown. With an ever broader list of potential diagnosis, a specific diagnosis of the cause of pulmonary disease becomes more important. Recent microbiologic advances have helped to facilitate the laboratory diagnosis of some of these agents. Immunoassays are available for the detection of antigen in nasopharyngeal secretions (respiratory syncytial virus, influenza) in serum (Cryptococcus species), and in urine (Legionella or Histoplasma species). Rapid-culture techniques are available for the culture and detection of various viruses, including cytomegalovirus. Molecular probes can now assist in the rapid identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and some fungi. In the near future, polymerase chain reaction-based techniques may assist in the detection of Pneumocystis carinii and Legionella, Chlamydia, Mycoplasma, and Mycobacteria species. An expeditious evaluation of pulmonary disease requires an understanding of the differential diagnosis of likely causes of pulmonary disease in specific immunosuppressed patient populations, an understanding of the most appropriate specimens to process for these diagnoses, and an understanding of the limitations (sensitivity and specificity) of these diagnostic tests. An understanding of the most appropriate specimens and tests in a given institution should allow for early, relatively specific treatment of many potentially life-threatening infections.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the frequency and characteristics of problems in laboratory testing in primary care physicians's offices and their impact on health care. DESIGN: Prospective descriptive study in which participating office-based primary care clinicians reported each occurrence of any laboratory incident during a 6-month study. Each identified problem was reported on a structured data collection instrument with an open-ended description of the problem. SETTING: Primary care physicians' offices in North America. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred twenty-four primary care clinicians in 49 practices of the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network (ASPN). MAIN RESULTS: A total of 180 problems were reported, yielding a crude rate of 1.1 problems per 1000 patient visits. Problems involving test ordering and specimen handling were the most common (56%), while those attributable to the test analysis itself accounted for 13% of the total. In the judgment of the practice staff, 27% of the reported problems had an impact on patient care. Of the 24 cases for which the specific impact was known and reported, half of the impacts were minor and about half were significant, as judged by whether or not the diagnosis and/or treatment of the patient was measurably affected. CONCLUSIONS: Clinically apparent problems with laboratory testing in primary care were found at a rate of 1.1 problems per 1000 patient visits. Of the laboratory problems that occurred in this study, 27% were judged by the physician to have an effect on patient care.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether participation in a consensus conference on the assessment of dementia would influence conference participants with respect to their recommendations to primary care physicians for the assessment of dementia. DESIGN: Questionnaire before and after the conference. SETTING: Canadian Consensus Conference on the Assessment of Dementia, held in Montreal, Oct. 5 and 6, 1989. PARTICIPANTS: All 38 experts representing relevant health disciplines who participated in the consensus conference; 36 completed both questionnaires. OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' opinion before and after the conference as to how frequently each of 28 manoeuvres (12 blood tests, 4 neurologic imaging procedures, 4 types of consultation and 8 "other" tests) should be ordered by primary care physicians as part of an assessment of a patient with dementia suspected in clinical grounds. RESULTS: For 18 (64%) of the 28 manoeuvres (10 of the 12 blood tests, 3 of the 4 neurologic imaging procedures and 5 of the 8 "other" tests), there was a shift in opinion after the conference toward recommending that primary care physicians order them less often; for 10 of these 18 (5 blood tests and 5 "other" tests) the shift was statistically significant. For the remaining 10 manoeuvres (36%) the shift in opinion was toward a recommendation that primary care physicians order them more often; the shift was not statistically significant for any of these 10 manoeuvres. CONCLUSION: Expert members of a consensus conference are influenced by the process of having participated in such a conference and are capable and willing to chance their initial recommendations when confronted with relevant data.