English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background. Patient safety is a cornerstone of healthcare quality, including clinical laboratory services. Management of patients related to the patient safety includes all aspect of services, which covers the process of diagnosing, giving therapy, and predicting the prognosis. An important form of clinical laboratory service concerned about patient safety is a result of critical values. The aim of this study is to analyze the critical values of the patients which are expected to influence the patient safety. Materials and Methods. This study is an observational study with cross-sectional design. The research method used in this study is an analytic observation by pulling data from the laboratory information system and then processed using univariate anivariate analysis. Results. This research acquired 1000 critical value data, and 768 of them that fulfilled the requirements are analyzed. The percentage of critical value reported is 100%. The categories of examination results consist of hematology, clinical chemistry, blood gas analysis, and electrolytes. The highest frequencies of critical values parameters are platelet count, sodium level, pH of blood and total bilirubin level. Turn-around times of 4 categories consecutively are blood gas analysis (1 minute 21 seconds), clinical chemistry (1 minute 23 seconds), electrolytes (1 minute 12 seconds), and hematology (1 minute 20 seconds). After that, this study performed ANOVA test resulted in p> 0.05 which means that the four categories are not significantly different. Conclusions. Critical value reporting has been done well, but has not shown a difference between pediatric and adult patients. This result supports the patient safety program. It needs regular monitoring and evaluation (monev) on the management of laboratory critical values to impove patient safety.

Performance of Laboratory Critical Value on Clinical Laboratory Services in Supporting Patient Safety