Dear colleagues
I am feeling somewhat of an old lion in this arena, but think it's probably
about time I contributed to this thread. I think there are three separate
issues to be considered.
1. Is there a fundamental difference between different aspects of clinical
support services. Is radiology (predominantly producing images)
fundamentally diffeent from Clinical Biochemistry (predominantly producing
numbers)?
I don't think there is (but perhaps I may be biased by twice as a patient
having been mis-diagnosed by Radiology (one pre-analytical, one
post-analytical error). Radiographers do their best to produce accurate
images, our technical staff do their best to produce accurate numbers (as
well as some producing accurate images). Whether or not the images or
numbers are accompanied by interpretation depends on local circumstances and
the setting (A & E out-of-hours emergencies vs a non-emergency inpatient
hospital setting for example). For Clinical Biochemistry, in the UK very few
labs produce numbers in isolation, the numbers are almost always accompanied
by at least a reference range (which may or may not be appropriate taking
into consideration age, sex, ethnic origin, patient preparation and setting,
and everything else). By providing a reference range we inevitably provide a
classification into 'normal' or 'abnormal' which is the start of
interpretation.
2. Can we rely on present-day clinical stuff accurately interpreting the
data which clinical support services provide?
Several respondents have pointed to the lack of training in our medical
school curricula; and I think we are all aware of many pre- and
post-analytical errors virtually outside the control of the lab contributing
to mis-interpretation and mis-diagnosis of patients. However this isn't
solely confined to junior clinicians; I despair when locally our older
clinicians dismiss as 'laboratory error' results which contradict their
pre-determined diagnosis. In the UK there is also increasing reliance on
'Nurse Practitioners' as the front line for investigation efforts in both
primary and secondary medical care - these desperately need help from the
lab.
3. How do we best use our time to ensure the best possible patient care from
our efforts?
We are all professionals, and woudn't be working in this area if we did not
have the interests of patients at heart. It is a matter for each of us to
find the best local solution depending on local circumstances and demands.
There is no right answer between expending most effort on a relatively few
hospital in (or out) patients (perhaps through visiting or phoning); or on
expending most on a larger number of primary care patients (perhaps through
commenting on reports as they go out); we would all like to do both
simultaneously, but we are all human and time is limited. Where we draw our
activity line in this grey area is down to our personal decision; we cannot
say a line drawn in one area is 'right' and another one is 'wrong'. The
bottom lines are that adequate communication (and also trust) between us and
the clinicians is vital (whatever form this takes) and that the best service
possible service to our patients is the bottom line to the equation.
With best wishes
Gordon Challand
------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/
|