The first is hi
We currently do urea with U&E and GGT with LFTs.
The first is historical and I have no evidence to either support or
condemn its inclusion.
The latter has been a simple matter of practicality and cost. We have
had no means for efficient cascading of tests. This meant that where a
GGT was subsequently considered to add extra information we either had
to find the old sample or the patient had to be rebled. The latter would
have been more common than the former. This meant additional attendances
for the patient together with the costs of sampling consumables. The
break even point was around 0.5% recall.
I am sure that those commissioning services will try to avoid any cost
they can but they have to understand that they have to balance the cost
of concurrent, low-hit rate testing against the much higher unit cost of
consecutive testing.
Trevor Tickner,
Norwich
-----Original Message-----
From: Clinical biochemistry discussion list
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gary Mascall
Sent: 21 November 2006 16:29
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Urea and Gamma GT
Following on from Martin Myers recent posting, I am interested to know
how
many pople do actually report Urea in Renal profiles and Gamma GT in
Liver
function tests.
We are currently undergoing a rationalisation, and are being told that
for
uniformity, we must all do the same thing, so 50% of the locality is
going
to have to go back to adding urea and gamma GT into these profiles,
having
agreed with local clinicians they were not needed of everyone several
years ago, for no convincing clinical reason. Also, I'm not sure what
the
reaction will be from Primary care when we add in another chargeable
test
for PbR!
I would therefore like people to let me know how many have dropped these
from their profiles, or like us been instructed to add them in, as I am
trying to see whether we are out of step with current practice/opinion.
Thanks,
Gary Mascall
Consultant in Clinical biochemistry
Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS trust.
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical community
working in clinical biochemistry. Please note, archived messages are
public and can be viewed via the internet. Views expressed are those of
the individual and they are responsible for all message content. ACB Web
Site http://www.acb.org.uk List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.) http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the originator of the message. This footer also confirms that this
email message has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses but this should not be relied upon as a guarantee that the contents are virus free.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifies and with authority,
states them to be the views of the Norfolk and Norwich University Hospital NHS Trust. The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure
under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Unless the information is legally exempt from disclosure, the confidentiality of this e-mail and your reply cannot be guaranteed
------ACB discussion List Information--------
This is an open discussion list for the academic and clinical
community working in clinical biochemistry.
Please note, archived messages are public and can be viewed
via the internet. Views expressed are those of the individual and
they are responsible for all message content.
ACB Web Site
http://www.acb.org.uk
List Archives
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/ACB-CLIN-CHEM-GEN.html
List Instructions (How to leave etc.)
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
|