John,
You are not alone: our Renal Unit also uses PROTON and we only release
results to it which have been
both technically and clinically authorised.
The results are sent to PROTON once per day at about 10pm with our
GPLINKS download.
If results are required more urgently they are telephoned or renal
staff can look them up
on our web results browser (Revive).
We experienced a few problems when our TelePath/PROTON link was set up
e.g. PROTON would not accept < (less than) results.
Regards, Wayne Bradbury.
Mr. W.H. Bradbury
Consultant Biochemist
Cumberland Infirmary
CARLISLE
CA2 7HY
Telephone: 01228 814521
Facsimilie: 01228 814831
E-mail: [log in to unmask]
>>> "O'Connor John (Royal Devon and Exeter Foundation Trust)"
<[log in to unmask]> 25/01/05 10:38:06 >>>
This email is directed at labs which send their results to
PROTON a
renal information system used by 50% of Renal Units in the UK. We are
under
immense pressure to release non clinically validated results directly
into
this system, so that patients can be discharged promptly.
We do pick up quite a few errors at clinical approval for
example
discrepant Creatinine and Urea results that can be seen on the
cumulative
view of serial results that usually turn out to be mislabelled samples
or
other mix ups. But we also pick up problems that are not immediately
obvious
when the samples are technically validated, for example poorly clotted
samples that cause partial probe blocks etc. Ok its not true clinical
validation as such, but it is a reality check that generally picks up 2
or 3
errors a week
Our renal physicians tell us we are the only laboratory in the
UK
who continue to clinically validate renal unit patient results and
delay
them going into PROTON, ? is this true.
I am always interested in how remote systems handle path
data, so
I duly spent a morning reviewing our results on it, the experience was
worrying.
I sent a text message as a specimen comment saying "PLEASE
IGNORE
THESE RESULTS THEY ARE RUBBISH" on a test patient where I generated
Potassium of 7.9 mmol/L. It appears that PROTON has no way of
conveying
specimen related information to you when you are reviewing results
which is
a significant omission from the system. Also I noted that if an
amended
result is sent from Pathology the change is made in PROTON but there is
no
way the change can be alerted to anyone using the system. So any
clinical
action taken on the first set of results will almost certainly not be
questioned. Possible the worst feature of PROTON that I noticed was the
lack
of showing any normal ranges. Given that PROTON is aggregating results
produced from different laboratories using different normal ranges;
trends
in the data that probably don't exist appear to the reviewer.
Anyhow thoughts and experiences that relate to this system
would be
welcome
Thanks
John
------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/
------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/
