OBJECTIVES: Although laboratory result presentation may lead to information overload and subsequent missed or delayed diagnosis, little has been done in the past to improve this post-analytical issue. We aimed to investigate the efficiency, efficacy and user satisfaction of alternative report formats. METHODS: We redesigned cumulative (sparkline format) and single reports (improved tabular and z-log format) and tested these on 46 physicians, nurses and medical students in comparison to the classical tabular formats, by asking standardized questions on general items on the reports as well as on suspected diagnosis and follow-up treatment or diagnostics. RESULTS: Efficacy remained at a very high level both in the new formats as well as in the classical formats. We found no significant difference in any of the groups. Efficiency improved in all groups when using the sparkline cumulative format and marginally when showing the improved tabular format. When asking medical questions, efficiency and efficacy remained similar between report formats and groups. All alternative reports were subjectively more attractive to the majority of participants. CONCLUSIONS: Showing cumulative reports as a graphical display led to faster detection of general information on the report with the same level of correctness. Considering the familiarity bias of the classical single report formats, the borderline-significant improvement of the alternative tabular format and the non-inferiority of the z-log format, suggests that single reports might benefit from some improvements derived from basic information design.

Clinical Chemistry Tyks Laboratories Turku University Hospital Turku Finland

Department of Clinical biochemistry and pharmacology The Tomas Bata Hospital in Zlín Zlín The Czech Republic

Department of Clinical Chemistry University of Turku Turku Finland

Department of Laboratory Medicine Hospital Universitari Son Espases Palma Spain

Department of Laboratory Medicine Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg Austria

Department of Medical Biochemistry and Pharmacology Haukeland University Hospital and Noklus Haraldsplass Deaconess Hospital Bergen Norway

Institute for Laboratory Medicine and Medical Microbiology Medizet Munich Germany

Institute of Molecular Regenerative Medicine Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg Austria

Laboratoire de Biologie Médicale Hôpital de Villefranche de Rouergue Villefranche de Rouergue France

Laboratory Diagnostics Center Moscow Healthcare Department Moscow Russia

Laboratory Medicine University Hospitals Leuven Leuven Belgium

School of Business and Management University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria Steyr Austria

Spinal Cord Injury and Tissue Regeneration Center Salzburg Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg Austria

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Wright, MC, Borbolla, D, Waller, RG, Del Fiol, G, Reese, T, Nesbitt, P, et al.. Critical care information display approaches and design frameworks: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Biomed Inf 2019;100S:100041. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjbinx.2019.100041.

Few, S Show me the numbers, 2nd ed. El Dorado Hills, CA, USA: Analytics Press; 2012.

Lenicek Krleza, J, Honovic, L, Vlasic Tanaskovic, J, Podolar, S, Rimac, V, Jokic, A. Post-analytical laboratory work: national recommendations from the working group for post-analytics on behalf of the croatian society of medical biochemistry and laboratory medicine. Biochem Med 2019;29:020502. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2019.020502.

National Institutes of Health. DAIDS guidelines for good clinical laboratory practice standards. Bethesda, MD, USA: National Institutes of Health; 2019.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC). The SAFER Guides [Guideline]; 2014. Available from: https://www.healthit.gov/topic/safety/safer-guides.

The Royal College of Pathologists of Australia. Standards for pathology informatics in australia (SPIA) [Guideline]; 2017. Available from: https://www.rcpa.edu.au/Library/Practising-Pathology/PTIS/APUTS-Downloads.

International Organization for Standardization. EN-ISO 15189 - medical laboratories - requirements for quality and competence. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization; 2012.

Lippi, G, Plebani, M. A Six-Sigma approach for comparing diagnostic errors in healthcare-where does laboratory medicine stand? Ann Transl Med 2018;6:180. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.04.02.

Burches, E, Burches, M. Efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency in the health care: the need for an agreement to clarify its meaning. IJCMPH 2020;4:035. https://doi.org/10.23937/2643-4512/1710035.

Cadamuro, J, Hillarp, A, Unger, A, von Meyer, A, Bauca, JM, Plekhanova, O, et al.. Presentation and formatting of laboratory results: a narrative review on behalf of the european federation of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine (EFLM) working group “postanalytical phase” (WG-POST). Crit Rev Clin Lab Sci 2021;58:329–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10408363.2020.1867051.

Makary, MA, Daniel, M. Medical error-the third leading cause of death in the US. BMJ 2016;353:i2139. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i2139.

Slawomirski, L, Auraaen, A, Klazinga, N. The economics of patient safety - strengthening a value-based approach to reducing patient harm at national level: organisation for economic co-operation and development - OECD; 2017. Available from: https://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/The-economics-of-patient-safety-March-2017.pdf.

Singh, H, Spitzmueller, C, Petersen, NJ, Sawhney, MK, Sittig, DF. Information overload and missed test results in electronic health record-based settings. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:702–4. https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamainternmed.61.

Bawden, D, Robinson, L. The dark side of information: overload, anxiety and other paradoxes and pathologies. J Inf Sci 2008;35:180–91. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165551508095781.

Bold, AM. Clinical chemistry reporting. problems and proposals. Lancet 1976;1:951–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(76)92726-4.

Bauer, DT, Guerlain, S, Brown, PJ. The design and evaluation of a graphical display for laboratory data. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2010;17:416–24. https://doi.org/10.1136/jamia.2009.000505.

Torsvik, T, Lillebo, B, Mikkelsen, G. Presentation of clinical laboratory results: an experimental comparison of four visualization techniques. J Am Med Inf Assoc 2013;20:325–31. https://doi.org/10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001147.

Schaubroeck, J, Muralidhar, K. A meta-analysis of the relative effects of tabular and graphic display formats on decision-making performance. Hum Perform 1991;4:127–45. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327043hup0402_3.

Senathirajah, Y, Bakken, S, Kaufman, D. The clinician in the driver’s seat: part 1 - a drag/drop user-composable electronic health record platform. J Biomed Inf 2014;52:165–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2014.09.002.

Senathirajah, Y, Kaufman, D, Bakken, S. The clinician in the driver’s seat: part 2 - intelligent uses of space in a drag/drop user-composable electronic health record. J Biomed Inf 2014;52:177–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbi.2014.09.008.

Mrazek, C, Lippi, G, Cadamuro, J, Keppel, MH, Felder, TK, Oberkofler, H, et al.. Errors within the total laboratory testing process, from test selection to medical decision-making - a review of causes, consequences, surveillance and solutions. Biochem Med 2020;30:020502. https://doi.org/10.11613/bm.2020.020502.