Laboratory testing in the emergency department: an Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) and Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) consensus report

Abstract Background: The mainstay of patient-oriented laboratory testing in emergency settings entails selecting a number and the type of tests according to valid criteria of appropriateness. Since the pattern of urgent tests requesting is variable across different institutions, we designed a joined survey between the Academy of Emergency Medicine and Care (AcEMC) and the Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Clinical Molecular Biology (SIBioC) for reaching tentative consensus about the most informative diagnostic tests in emergency settings. Methods: A survey, containing the most commonly ordered urgent laboratory tests and the relative clinical indications, was disseminated to eight relevant members of AcEMC and eight relevant members of SIBioC. All contributors were asked to provide numerical scores for the different laboratory parameters, where 1 indicated “strongly recommended”, 2 “recommended in specific circumstances”, and 3 “strongly discouraged”. The mean results of the survey were presented as the mean of responders’ values, and the parameters were finally classified as “strongly recommended” (mean value, 1.00–1.49), “weakly recommended” (mean value, 1.50–1.99), “discouraged” (mean value, 2.00–2.49) and “strongly discouraged” (mean value, 2.50–3.00). Results: The results of the survey allowed defining a hierarchy of priority, wherein 24 tests were “strongly recommended”. The use of five common tests was instead “strongly discouraged”. For 16 additional parameters in the list, the consensus ranged between “weakly recommended” and “discouraged”. Conclusions: We hope that results presented in this joint AcEMC-SIBioC consensus document may help harmonizing panel of tests and requesting patterns in emergency setting, at least at a national level.

[1]  Mauro Panteghini,et al.  The role of laboratory in ensuring appropriate test requests. , 2017, Clinical biochemistry.

[2]  G. Lippi,et al.  Exploring the iceberg of inappropriateness in hemostasis testing , 2017, Diagnosis.

[3]  G. Lippi,et al.  Laboratory economics. Risk or opportunity? , 2016, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[4]  J. Westbrook,et al.  The Effect of Laboratory Testing on Emergency Department Length of Stay: A Multihospital Longitudinal Study Applying a Cross‐classified Random‐effect Modeling Approach , 2015, Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.

[5]  G. Lippi,et al.  Stat testing utilization in clinical laboratories. National survey of Italian Society of Clinical Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (SIBioC) , 2014, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[6]  Mario Plebani,et al.  The ten commandments of laboratory testing for emergency physicians , 2014, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[7]  Maria Salinas,et al.  Differences in laboratory requesting patterns in emergency department in Spain , 2013, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[8]  Mario Plebani,et al.  Closing the brain-to-brain loop in laboratory testing , 2011, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[9]  G. Lippi,et al.  Laboratory "incidentalomas": facts or fiction? , 2010, European journal of internal medicine.

[10]  W S A Smellie,et al.  Appropriateness of test use in pathology: a new era or reinventing the wheel? , 2003, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[11]  E. Hardin Emergency medicine and the laboratory. , 1996, Journal of the National Medical Association.