Abstract
Enhanced capabilities of modern information systems will have a major impact on the way that clinical laboratories generate diagnostic information and transmit that information to their physician clients. This article provides a perspective on how some of the most imminent changes in informatics are likely to alter laboratory practices and to create new roles for the clinical laboratory through the ability to manage vast quantities of information. The areas covered include utilization of laboratory services, process control in the laboratory, interpretation of test results, and laboratory economics. J. Clin. Lab. Anal. 13:53–58, 1999. © 1999 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Keywords: informatics, clinical laboratory, test utilization, process control, test interpretation, medical record, laboratory economics, reimbursement, compliance
REFERENCES
- 1. Nakamura RM. Technology that will initiate future revolutionary changes in healthcare and the clinical laboratory. J Clin Lab Anal 1999;13:49–52. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Mandel JS, Bond JH, Church TR, et al. Reducing mortality from colorectal cancer by screening for fecal occult blood. N Engl J Med 1993;328:1365–1371. Medline [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Glenn GC and the Laboratory Testing Strategy Task Force of the College of American Pathologists . Practice parameter on laboratory panel testing for screening and case finding in asymptomatic adults. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1996;120:929–943. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Report of the Expert Committee on the Diagnosis and Classification of Diabetes Mellitus. Diabetes Care 1997;20:1183–1197. Medline [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Woo J, Henry JB. Quality management In: Henry JB, editor. Clinical diagnosis and management by laboratory methods, 19th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.; 1996. p 125–136. [Google Scholar]
- 6. Westgard JO. Charts of operational process specifications (“OPSpecs Charts”) for assessing the precision, accuracy, and quality control needed to satisfy proficiency testing performance criteria. Clin Chem 1992;38:1226–1233. Medline [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Felder RA. Robotics and automated workstations for rapid response testing. Am J Clin Pathol 1995;104(Suppl 1):S26–S32. Medline [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Maffetone MA, Watt SW, Whisler KE. Automated specimen handling: bar codes and robotics. Lab Med 1990;21:436–443. [Google Scholar]
- 9. Jones BA, Calam RR, Howanitz PJ. Chemistry specimen acceptability: a College of American Pathologists Q‐Probes study of 453 laboratories. Arch Pathol Lab Med 1997;121:19–26. Medline [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Boyd JC, Felder RA, Savory J. Robotics and the changing face of the clinical laboratory. Clin Chem 1996;42:1899–1900. Medline [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Markin RS. Recent trends in clinical laboratory automation. Clin Lab Manag Rev 1998;12:176–180. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. McPherson RA. Robotics, automation, and the new role of process control. Clin Lab Manag Rev 1998;12:339–346. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Fang CY, Dunkel‐Schetter C, Tatsugawa ZH, et al. Attitudes toward genetic carrier screening for cystic fibrosis among pregnant women: the role of health beliefs and avoidant coping style. Women Health 1997;3:31–51. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta‐analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279:1200–1205. Medline [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]