As a reference lab providing urinary steroid profile analysis, I would be
interested in comments from list members on how they handle the reports they
receive. My reports, like those of other similar services in the UK,
consist of an extensive list of values for different metabolites and a
comment. Whilst not every value may be said to be relevant to a particular
diagnosis, I report a standard list, both because being selective requires
more decision making and therefore more time and also because alternative
interpretations based on new information are still possible. Having laboured
to produce an A4 word processed sheet which contains, in my view, no
superfluous information, I had always assumed that a copy of this would find
its way, via the clinical chemist, to the patient's notes.
It has recently become apparent that many labs retype the result onto their
reporting systems and may only transmit the comment. Among reasons given
are that paper storage is difficult to reconcile with electronic systems and
that "the clinician will not understand all that detail".
On the last point, I'm not sure why another clinical chemist thinks they
understand what a doctor will understand better than I do. I aim to write my
reports for the doctor and asssume that the clinical chemist, if asked to
further explain, will call on me if need be. The other is more tricky. It
is obviously a waste of a trained person's time to act as a copy typist, and
errors are inevitable. Will this be resolved by wider use of scanners? At
the risk of sounding like a dinosaur, it would be a poor pathology reporting
system that forced its users to compress and distort external reports. What
about referral labs moving over to electronic transmission?
All feedback appreciated!
Norman Taylor
Norman F. Taylor
Clinical Scientist/Hon Lecturer
Phone (Direct) 020 7346 3731
Fax 020 7737 7434
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|