scholarly journals A Characterization of Local LOINC Mapping for Laboratory Tests in Three Large Institutions

2011 ◽  
Vol 50 (02) ◽  
pp. 105-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. C. Lin ◽  
D. J. Vreeman ◽  
C. J. McDonald ◽  
S. M. Huff
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Data Exchange ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Reference Laboratory ◽  
Institutional Data ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Local Institution ◽  
Concept Type ◽  
Manual Review

Summary Objectives: We characterized the use of laboratory LOINC® codes in three large institutions, focused on the following questions: 1) How many local codes had been voluntarily mapped to LOINC codes by each institution? 2) Could additional mappings be found by expert manual review for any local codes that were not initially mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? and 3) Are there any common characteristics of unmapped local codes that might explain why some local codes were not mapped to LOINC codes by the local institution? Methods: With Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval, we obtained deidentified data from three large institutions. We calculated the percentage of local codes that have been mapped to LOINC by personnel at each of the institutions. We also analyzed a sample of un-mapped local codes to determine whether any additional LOINC mappings could be made and identify common characteristics that might explain why some local codes did not have mappings. Results: Concept type coverage and concept token coverage (volume of instance data covered) of local codes mapped to LOINC codes were 0.44/0.59, 0.78/0.78 and 0.79/ -0.88 for ARUP, Intermountain, and Regenstrief, respectively. After additional expert manual mapping, the results showed mapping rates of 0.63/0.72, 0.83/0.80 and 0.88/0.90, respectively. After excluding local codes which were not useful for inter-institutional data exchange, the mapping rates became 0.73/0.79, 0.90/0.99 and 0.93/0.997, respectively. Conclusions: Local codes for two institutions could be mapped to LOINC codes with 99% or better concept token coverage, but mapping for a third institution (a reference laboratory) only achieved 79% concept token coverage. Our research supports the conclusions of others that not all local codes should be assigned LOINC codes. There should also be public discussions to develop more precise rules for when LOINC codes should be assigned

scholarly journals California Community Pharmacist Preparedness in Ordering and Interpreting Laboratory Tests

2020 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 33-37
Author(s):  
Angelica Del Rosario ◽  
Kathleen Feng ◽  
Lena Haddad ◽  
Brian Lee ◽  
Ryan Murakami ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Community Setting ◽  
Community Pharmacists ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Survey Study ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Descriptive Survey

Introduction The passage of Senate Bill 493 (SB 493) granted California pharmacists the ability to order and interpret lab tests without physician approval. Despite this legislation, not all pharmacists are aware of, or exercise, this authority. The goals of this study are to describe 1) pharmacists' willingness, 2) perceived factors influencing pharmacist preparedness, and 3) challenges and barriers to ordering laboratory tests in the community setting. Methods This is a prospective, descriptive survey study that was performed using online survey software from August 31, 2017, to October 4, 2017. An anonymous link was distributed to California pharmacists via California Society of Health-System Pharmacists (CSHP) and California Pharmacists Association (CPhA) email newsletters. Additionally, targeted interviews of pharmacists were conducted by phone to qualitatively assess barriers as well as successful practices. Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval was obtained prior to initiating the study. Results Sixty-six pharmacist respondents completed the online survey. The reported two biggest barriers to ordering lab tests identified by community pharmacists were 1) lack of available time and 2) compensation structure. Despite these barriers, most pharmacists were willing to order and interpret laboratory tests and accept the liability, regardless of a reimbursement guarantee. Conclusions Community pharmacists self-report preparedness to order and interpret laboratory tests. Barriers in carrying out this task include lack of staff, resources, compensation, and reimbursement structure.

scholarly journals The Impact of NORTH STAR on Suicidality, Substance Problems, Intimate Partner Violence, and Child Abuse

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy M Smith Slep ◽  
Richard E Heyman ◽  
Michael F Lorber ◽  
David J Linkh
Keyword(s):  
Intimate Partner Violence ◽  
Child Abuse ◽  
Air Force ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
Absolute Risk ◽  
Intimate Partner ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Introduction We evaluated the effectiveness of New Orientation for Reducing Threats to Health from Secretive-problems That Affect Readiness (NORTH STAR), a community assessment, planning, and action framework to reduce the prevalence of suicidality, substance problems, intimate partner violence, and child abuse. Materials and Methods One-third of U.S. Air Force bases worldwide were randomly assigned to NORTH STAR (n = 12) or an assessment-and-feedback-only condition (n = 12). Two Air Force-wide, cross-sectional, anonymous, web-based surveys were conducted of randomly selected samples assessing risk/protective factors and outcomes. This study was reviewed and approved by the institutional review board at the investigators’ university and by the institutional review board at Fort Detrick. Results NORTH STAR, relative to control, bases experienced a 33% absolute risk reduction in hazardous drinking rates and cumulative risk, although, given the small number of bases, these effects were not statistically significant. Conclusions Given its relatively low cost, use of empirically supported light-touch interventions, and emphasis on sustainability with existing resources, NORTH STAR may be a useful system for prevention of a range of adult behavioral health problems that are difficult to impact.

scholarly journals 2019 Novel Coronavirus Vaccination among Post-graduate Residents and Fellows

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 215013272110229
Author(s):  
Mostafa Abohelwa ◽  
Mohamed Elmassry ◽  
John Abdelmalek ◽  
Drew Payne ◽  
Kenneth Nugent
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
The United States ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Institutional Review Board ◽  
Institutional Review ◽  
Texas Tech University ◽  
Novel Coronavirus ◽  
United States Healthcare

Background Coronavirus-2 (COVID-19) has caused a worldwide pandemic since December 2019. Since then, clinical trials with vaccines have been started and completed, and at present, 3 COVID-19 vaccines have been approved for use in the United States. Healthcare providers were among the first to get vaccinated, but the precise attitudes of healthcare workers toward vaccination are uncertain. Objective To understand residents and fellows’ attitudes toward vaccination and record any side effects after vaccination. Methods We conducted an anonymous survey that was open from 3-1-2021 to 3-12-2021 using distribution lists from the Graduate Medical Education office on the Lubbock campus of the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center after getting approval from the Institutional Review Board (L21-088). Results Eighty-one residents and fellows (26.6% out of 304) responded to our survey. Among those who responded, 63 (77.8 %) were between 25 and 35 years old, and 41 (50.6%) were males. Seventy-seven (95.1%) received the vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech), 78 (96.3%) reported that they supported vaccination, and 3 (3.7%) reported that they did not want vaccination. Eight members (9.8%) had tested positive for COVID-19 infection before vaccination, but only 1 (1.23%) had tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies. All residents and fellows reported side effects after the vaccination, including pain at the injection site (77; 100%), local redness (9; 11.6%), local swelling (13; 16.8%), fever (25; 32.5%), fatigue (25; 32.5%), chills (34; 44.1 %), headache (38; 49.4%). Conclusions Most medical trainees have a high interest in COVID-19 vaccination; however, a few reported that they did not want vaccination.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document