In message <[log in to unmask]>, Rachel
Wilmot <[log in to unmask]> writes
>I agree with Mike Ryan (and others) that it is inappropriate to delay
>results for prolonged periods whist awaiting clinical validation. They
>should be available post technical validation. Ideally those that have been
>selected for clinical validation either by computer rules or BMS staff
>should be available, annotated appropriately.
>
I agree as well that delaying results is inappropriate - but this can be
audited (many computer systems can be set up to do it automatically) and
we regularly check the times each person takes on the reporting desk to
report results to ensure that we are not causing inappropriate delay.
>
>We do "occaisionally" get good clinical information or even get asked a
>particular question on a request form, in which situation I think it polite
>to answer in the language in which it was asked.
>
>
As far as clinical details are concerned, we have ward requesting which
forces provision of a certain amount of clinical detail and as we can
provide much more help when this is used, the clinical details are often
reasonable. GPs often provide better information when they actually
want help so we need to work to a system that can easily identify the
request form and get all the information provided. Good clinical
details (and correct specimen labelling and handling) are as much a part
of good medical practice as good medical notes and equally a matter of
clinical governance. I have no qualms about criticising my clinical
colleagues for lack of clinical detail and in certain cases they get an
absolutely minimum response legally consistent with the request.
Trevor
--
Trevor Gray
Dept. of Clinical Chemistry,
Northern General Hospital,
Sheffield S5 7AU
0114 271 4309
|