Umbilical Cord Drug Screening in Multiple Births: Experience from a Reference Laboratory and Academic Medical Center

Author(s):  
Heather A Nelson ◽  
Kelly E Wood ◽  
Gwendolyn A McMillin ◽  
Matthew D Krasowski

Abstract The objective of this study was to review the results of umbilical cord drug screening in twins and triplets (multiples) to compare drug(s) and/or drug metabolite(s) detected. Results that did not agree between multiples were considered mismatched and were investigated. A retrospective analysis was conducted using de-identified data from a national reference laboratory, and results were compared with data from an academic medical center, where detailed medical chart review was performed. Umbilical cord was analyzed for stimulants, sedatives, opioids, and other drugs and metabolites. For the reference laboratory dataset, 23.3% (n=844) of 3,616 umbilical cords from twins (n=3,550) or triplets (n=66) were positive for one or more drugs and/or metabolites. Of these, mismatched results were identified for thirty-seven sets of twins (2.1%) and no sets of triplets. The most frequent mismatches were found in opioids (n=24), with morphine (n=5) being the most mismatched of any single analyte in the panel. Mismatches for the marijuana metabolite 11-nor-9-carboxy-delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (9-COOH-THC) in the reference laboratory dataset occurred in six of 737 sets of twins (0.8%) and no triplets. For the academic medical center dataset, 21.9% (n=57) of 260 umbilical cords tested positive for one or more drugs and/or metabolite(s). Of these, 4 mismatches (3.2%) were identified, including 9-COOH-THC (n=2), phentermine (n=1), and oxycodone (n=1), all involving twins. All involved cases where the discrepant analyte was likely present in the negative twin but either slightly below reporting cutoff threshold, or failed analytical quality criteria. Mismatched results of umbilical cord drug screening occur in less than 4% of twins and most often occur when the analyte is slightly above the reporting cutoff in just one infant.

2004 ◽  
Vol 128 (12) ◽  
pp. 1424-1427 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martha E. Laposata ◽  
Michael Laposata ◽  
Elizabeth M. Van Cott ◽  
Dion S. Buchner ◽  
Mohammed S. Kashalo ◽  
...  

Abstract Context.—Complex coagulation test panels ordered by clinicians are typically reported to clinicians without a patient-specific interpretive paragraph. Objectives.—To survey clinicians regarding pathologist-generated interpretations of complex laboratory testing panels and to assess the ability of the interpretations to educate test orderers. Design.—Surveys were conducted of physicians ordering complex coagulation laboratory testing that included narrative interpretation. Evaluation of order requisitions was performed to assess the interpretation's influence on ordering practices. Setting.—Physicians ordering coagulation testing at a large academic medical center hospital in Boston, Mass, and physicians from outside hospitals using the academic medical center as a reference laboratory for coagulation testing. Outcome Measures.—Physician surveys and evaluation of laboratory requisition slips. Results.—In nearly 80% of responses, the ordering clinicians perceived that the interpretive comments saved them time and improved the diagnostic process. Moreover, the interpretations were perceived by ordering clinicians to help prevent a misdiagnosis or otherwise impact the differential diagnosis in approximately 70% of responses. In addition, interpretations appeared to be able to train the ordering clinicians as to the standard ordering practices. Conclusions.—The results demonstrate physician satisfaction with an innovative information delivery approach that provides laboratory diagnostic interpretation and test-ordering education to clinicians in the context of their daily workflow.


2005 ◽  
Vol 129 (11) ◽  
pp. 1476-1479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bobbi S. Pritt ◽  
Nicholas J. Hardin ◽  
Jeffrey A. Richmond ◽  
Steven L. Shapiro

Abstract Context.—The correctly completed death certificate provides invaluable personal, epidemiologic, and legal information and should be thorough and accurate. Death certification errors are common and range from minor to severe. Objective.—To determine the frequency and type of errors by nonpathologist physicians at a university-affiliated medical center. Design.—Fifty random patients were identified who died at this academic medical center between January 2002 and December 2003 and did not undergo an autopsy. From medical chart review, clinical summaries were produced. Two pathologists used these summaries to create mock death certificates. The original and mock death certificates were then compared to identify errors in the original certificate. Errors were graded on a I to IV scale, with grade IV being the most severe. Results.—Of the 50 death certificates reviewed, grade I, II, and III errors were noted in 72%, 32%, and 30%, respectively. Seventeen certificates (34%) had grade IV errors (wrong cause or manner of death). Multiple errors were identified in 82% of the death certificates reviewed. Conclusions.—The rate of major (grade IV) death certification errors at this academic setting is high and is consistent with major error rates reported by other academic institutions. We attribute errors to house staff inexperience, fatigue, time constraints, unfamiliarity with the deceased, and perceived lack of importance of the death certificate. To counter these factors, we recommend a multifaceted approach, including an annual course in death certification and discussion of the death certificate for each deceased patient during physician rounds. These measures should result in increased accuracy of this important document.


2002 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 95-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
JoAnn Manson ◽  
Beverly Rockhill ◽  
Margery Resnick ◽  
Eleanor Shore ◽  
Carol Nadelson ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document