Table 2.

Table 2 Timeliness of Traditional Process and Computerized Alerts for Reporting Outpatient Intermountain Healthcare Laboratory Results

	Intermountain facility	Traditional reporting with faxes, printouts and mailed reports			Computerized alerts
		N	median # hrs	range ∗	n	median # hrs	range ∗	p value
		Specimen collected → nurse started reviewing results			Specimen collected → nurse completed actions
	Total Time	145	33.4	(25.8 – 58)	2106	9.2	(4.3 – 28)
Reporting Time		Specimen collected → Report arrived †			Specimen collected → Alert arrived §
Creatinine	LDS Hospital	48	1.5	(0.9 – 7.6)	567	0.8	(0.6 – 1.1)	<.001
	Other	29	7.2	(3.9 – 24.2)	475	1.3	(0.9 – 1.8)	<.001
Tacrolimus	LDS Hospital	38	7	(3.6 – 24)	572	3.5	(2.4 – 4.9)	<.001
	Other	25	25.6	(22.7 – 47.3)	452	17.4	(12 – 24)	<.001
Cyclosporin A	LDS Hospital	2	14.8	(12.0 – 17.5)	21	3.4	(2.0 – 4.8)	0.07
	Other	3	28	(21.4 – 42.8)	19	26.1	(23.8 – 28)	0.39
Response Time		Report arrived→ nurse reviewed result ‡			Alert arrived → nurse completed actions §
Creatinine	LDS Hospital	48	22.4	(5.0 – 31.9)	567	3.5	(1.4 – 7.7)	<.001
	Other	29	19.9	(6.7 – 34.7)	475	5.6	(1.7 – 24)	.004
Tacrolimus	LDS Hospital	38	24.9	(12.2 – 34.1)	572	4.1	(1.9 – 22)	<.001
	Other	25	11.6	(6.7 – 44.8)	452	13.5	(5.1 – 35)	0.72
Cyclosporin A	LDS Hospital	2	31.1	(16.3 – 45.9)	21	4.5	(1.9 – 22)	0.3
	Other	3	32.7	(3.8 – 80)	19	4.4	(0.8 – 51)	0.6

^∗ Reported ranges are interquartile ranges.

^† For creatinine and tacrolimus tests, there was a significant difference in the paper-based reporting time from LDS Hospital vs. other Intermountain hospitals (p < 0.002).

^‡ There was no significant difference in the response time during paper-based reporting, by source of the report or type of lab test.

^§ Using computerized alerts, there was a significant difference in the reporting time from LDS Hospital vs. other Intermountain hospitals for each lab test (p < 0.001) and there was a significant difference in the response time for creatinine and tacrolimus results (p<0.001).