Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
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.
Vasikaran et al. (Wed,) studied this question.