To evaluate elevated patient calcium results as a postanalytic quality indicator of physician practices.
Participants prospectively identified hypercalcemic patient results for 4 months or until they found 320 hypercalcemic results, and then, after at least 3 days, reviewed the medical records of these patients. Hypercalcemia was defined as a calcium value that exceeded the upper limit of each laboratory's reference range by 0.12 mmol/L or more. Participants, as well a subset of their physicians who did not acknowledge or respond to elevated results in the medical record, answered a questionnaire about their practices.
Five hundred twenty-five laboratories enrolled in the College of American Pathologists Q-Probes program.
The presence of hyercalcemic results in patients' medical records and physicians' acknowledgement and response to those elevated results.
More than 5500 hypercalcemic results were identified, of which 53.2% represented a new finding. About 3.5% of results were not charted in the patients' records, and 23.1% of patient records did not contain clinician documentation of the abnormal result. Follow-up laboratory tests were not ordered for 13.8% of the elevated values. For 570 of the 808 results for which there was neither clinician documentation nor designated follow-up laboratory tests ordered, patients' physicians received written notification of the elevated calcium results along with a questionnaire. Responses were received from 386 physicians (68%). One hundred physicians indicated they did not order the specific calcium measurement, and of these 100, 85 responded it was part of a panel. The 286 physicians who ordered the test stated the results ultimately led to further testing (69%), a change of management (56%), or a new diagnosis (25%).
We found that a high percentage of abnormal results (3.5%) were not documented in the patients' medical records, the diagnosis of hypercalcemia frequently was new (53.2%), and a high percentage of physicians did not respond to elevated calcium results by writing a note (23.1%) or ordering another test (13.8%). Opportunities for quality improvement at these postanalytical steps are far greater than at the analytical step. Laboratorians must help physicians identify and respond to clinically important laboratory results.