Background Interpretative commenting constitutes an important aspect of
the post-analytical phase in chemical pathology, but has only recently been the
subject of quality assessment. The Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia
(RCPA)-Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB) Chemical Pathology
Patient Report Comments Program is currently in its third year, having started in
2000 as a pilot program. We present a review of the pilot program.
Methods The program is aimed at individuals rather than laboratories.
Two cases were circulated to participants of the Chemical Pathology Quality Assurance
Program every month over a 6-month period. The case report contained the age and sex
of the patient, together with brief clinical notes, the biochemistry results for
commenting and other information of relevance. Three lines of space were given for
the comment. The comments received from participants were broken down into their
components and translated into common key phrases for the purpose of summarization
and analysis. A histogram of the frequency of use of the common key phrases was
generated. The comments or the key phrases were not given scores or marks, nor was
any other indication given as to the appropriateness of their comments.
Results This approach of simple peer-group comparison of comments
without any assessment of the appropriateness of the comments was found to be
inadequate; thus, when the program continues, key phrases will be classified
according to degree of appropriateness and a suggested comment for each case will be
proposed by an 'expert' panel. Conclusions The program can serve a
useful role in continuing education. Clinical biochemists and trainees who add
interpretative comments to results produced by their laboratory, or give
interpretative advice over the telephone, may potentially benefit from participating
in this program.
