A-145 Evaluating clinician compliance with laboratory guidance for prolonged aPTT testing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) is a test used to evaluate coagulation disorders and is frequently ordered in the preoperative setting. When a patient presents with a prolonged aPTT (=> 40 sec) without documented anticoagulant use, our laboratory performs a mixing study with normal plasma to calculate Rosner*s index. The index is computed by our laboratory informatic system, and a comment is posted on the report to guide clinicians toward further investigation either coagulation factor deficiency or lupus anticoagulant/inhibitor. These supplementary tests are costly in terms of technical time and laboratory resources. Herein, we aimed to assess whether the laboratory recommendations were followed by clinicians and to determine whether the laboratory/clinician strategy could be optimized for prolonged aPTT result. Methods We conducted a retrospective study involving 180 patients who had an aPTT result => 40 seconds when analyzed with the Hemosil Synthasil APTT reagent on the ACL TOP analyzer. First, we analyzed the frequency of follow-up investigations and determined whether clinicians adhered to the recommendations provided on laboratory reports. Next, we assessed whether the patients had coagulation factor deficiencies or lupus anticoagulant, and whether these results were consistent with Rosner*s index calculations (= 10 indicating a coagulation factor deficiency and > 10 indicating a lupus anticoagulant). Results All patients with a Rosner index >10 (n=15), who were investigated a for lupus anticoagulant, tested positive, confirming that the laboratory decision limits for Rosner index are acceptable. Among the 180 patients included in our study, 15 died within a week of the initial request, and only 37 (21%) underwent further investigation. Consequently, clinicians did not follow up on 128 patients (78%) with prolonged aPTT. Of the 37 patients who had a follow-up, only 17 were investigated in accordance with the laboratory’s recommendations. A targeted investigation, either for a coagulation factor deficiency or for lupus anticoagulant, was ordered for 22 of those patients. However, 15 patients underwent both investigations, despite the laboratory recommending only one, suggesting suboptimal use of resources. Conclusion Our results raise concerns about the effectiveness of the current investigation strategy for prolonged aPTT. The low adherence of clinician to laboratory recommendations (21%) and the significant proportion of patients who did not receive the appropriate tests (54% of investigated patients) suggest inefficient use of resources. These findings emphasize the need to optimize the laboratory testing algorithm for prolonged aPTT and encourage improved collaboration between the laboratory and clinicians to ensure more effective patient management.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".