Delta Check Practices and Outcomes: A Q-Probes Study Involving 49 Health Care Facilities and 6541 Delta Check Alerts.

CONTEXT - Delta checks serve as a patient-based quality control tool to detect testing problems. OBJECTIVE - To evaluate delta check practices and outcomes. DESIGN - Q-Probes participants provided information about delta check policies and procedures. Information about investigations, problems, and corrective actions was prospectively collected for up to 100 testing episodes involving delta check alerts. RESULTS - Among 4505 testing episodes involving 6541 delta check alerts, the median frequencies of actions taken among 49 laboratories were clinical review, 38.0%; retest, 25.0%, or recheck, 20.2%; current specimen, nothing, 15.4%; analytical check, 5.0%; other; 2%; and retest or check previous specimen, 0%. Rates of any action taken by analyte ranged from 84 of 179 (46.9%) for glucose to 748 of 868 (86.2%) for hemoglobin and potassium. Among 4505 testing episodes, nontesting problems included physiologic causes (1472; 32.7%); treatment causes (1318; 19.2%); and transfusion causes (846; 9.9%). Testing problems included 77 interference (1.7%), 62 contamination (1.4%), 51 clotting (1.1%), 27 other (0.6%), 12 mislabeling (0.3%), and 5 analytical (0.1%). Testing problems by analyte ranged from 13 of 457 (2.8%) for blood urea nitrogen to 12 of 46 (26.1%) for mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration. Using more delta check analytes was associated with detecting more testing problems (P = .04). More delta check alerts per testing episode resulted in more actions taken (P = .001) and more problems identified (P < .001). The most common outcome among 4500 testing episodes was reporting results without modifications or comments in 2512 (55.8%); results were not reported in 136 (3.0%). CONCLUSIONS - Actions taken in response to delta check alerts varied widely, and most testing problems detected were preanalytical. Using a higher number of different analytes and evaluating previous specimens may improve delta check practices.

[1]  Christopher Naugler,et al.  How useful are delta checks in the 21st century? A stochastic-dynamic model of specimen mix-up and detection , 2012, Journal of pathology informatics.

[2]  J. Ladenson,et al.  Patients as their own controls: use of the computer to identify "laboratory error". , 1975, Clinical chemistry.

[3]  L B Sheiner,et al.  A clinical evaluation of various delta check methods. , 1981, Clinical chemistry.

[4]  A. Dawnay,et al.  A simple electronic alert for acute kidney injury , 2015, Annals of clinical biochemistry.

[5]  Ira Miller,et al.  Development and Evaluation of a Logical Delta Check for Identifying Erroneous Blood Count Results in a Tertiary Care Hospital. , 2015, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[6]  T V Di Silvio,et al.  Evaluation of discrepancies in patients' results--an aspect of computer-assisted quality control. , 1975, Clinical chemistry.

[7]  Howanitz Pj.  Quality assurance measurements in departments of pathology and laboratory medicine. , 1990 .

[8]  Mario Plebani,et al.  Causes, consequences, detection, and prevention of identification errors in laboratory diagnostics , 2009, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[9]  Ayaho Miyamoto,et al.  A novel weighted cumulative delta-check method for highly sensitive detection of specimen mix-up in the clinical laboratory , 2013, Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine.

[10]  M. Scott,et al.  An examination of the usefulness of repeat testing practices in a large hospital clinical chemistry laboratory. , 2012, American journal of clinical pathology.

[11]  Rhona J. Souers,et al.  Utility of repeat testing of critical values: a Q-probes analysis of 86 clinical laboratories. , 2014, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[12]  Maureen Sampson,et al.  Time adjusted sensitivity analysis: A new statistical test for the optimization of delta check rules , 2007 .

[13]  P W Barnes,et al.  The international consensus group for hematology review: suggested criteria for action following automated CBC and WBC differential analysis. , 2005, Laboratory hematology : official publication of the International Society for Laboratory Hematology.

[14]  L B Sheiner,et al.  The performance of delta check methods. , 1979, Clinical chemistry.

[15]  Frederick G. Strathmann,et al.  Simulations of delta check rule performance to detect specimen mislabeling using historical laboratory data. , 2011, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[16]  Won-Ki Min,et al.  New Decision Criteria for Selecting Delta Check Methods Based on the Ratio of the Delta Difference to the Width of the Reference Range Can Be Generally Applicable for Each Clinical Chemistry Test Item , 2012, Annals of laboratory medicine.

[17]  P P Sher.  An evaluation of the detection capacity of a computer-assisted real-time delta check system. , 1979, Clinical chemistry.

[18]  William McCarthy,et al.  Invention and validation of an automated camera system that uses optical character recognition to identify patient name mislabeled samples. , 2014, Clinical chemistry.

[19]  D P Connelly,et al.  Rate and delta checks compared for selected chemistry tests. , 1988, Clinical chemistry.

[20]  P. Froom,et al.  Falsely elevated prothrombin international normalized ratio values. , 2010, American journal of clinical pathology.

[21]  Insoo Rheem,et al.  The Multi-Item Univariate Delta Check Method: A New Approach , 1998, MedInfo.

[22]  Ying Chen,et al.  Biological variations of hematologic parameters determined by UniCel DxH 800 hematology analyzer. , 2013, Archives of pathology & laboratory medicine.

[23]  D A Lindberg,et al.  Collection, Evaluation, and Transmission of Hospital Laboratory Data , 1967, Methods of Information in Medicine.

[24]  Matthew D. Krasowski,et al.  Autoverification in a core clinical chemistry laboratory at an academic medical center , 2014, Journal of pathology informatics.

[25]  Kaveh G Shojania,et al.  Classifying laboratory incident reports to identify problems that jeopardize patient safety. , 2003, American journal of clinical pathology.

[26]  Mario Plebani,et al.  Errors in laboratory medicine. , 2002, Clinical chemistry.

[27]  J S Nosanchuk,et al.  CUMS and delta checks. A systematic approach to quality control. , 1974, American journal of clinical pathology.

[28]  Jack Chen,et al.  Voluntary Electronic Reporting of Laboratory Errors , 2012, American journal of medical quality : the official journal of the American College of Medical Quality.