A discussion of cases in the 2001 RCPA-AQAP Chemical Pathology Case Report Comments Program.
OBJECTIVE
We present a descriptive analysis of the 10 case reports distributed in the Royal College of Pathologists of Australasia (RCPA) and the Australasian Association of Clinical Biochemists (AACB) Chemical Pathology Patient Report Comments Program to assess the quality of interpretative commenting in clinical biochemistry in 2001.


METHODS
Participants were asked to comment on a given set of biochemistry results attached with brief clinical details. All responses received were translated into key phrases and graphically presented on a histogram. An expert panel was asked to evaluate the appropriateness of the key phrases and to propose a suggested composite comment.


RESULTS
While the majority of comments received were felt to be acceptable by the expert panel, some comments were felt to be inappropriate or misleading. As comments on laboratory reports may affect clinical management of patients, it is important that these comments reflect accepted practice and current guidelines.


CONCLUSIONS
The Patient Report Comments Program may play an important role in continuing education and possibly in quality assurance of interpretative commenting.
Lim
Ee Mun
EM
Department of Biochemistry, Royal Perth Hospital, GPO Box X2213, Pathcentre, Perth, WA 6847, Australia.
Vasikaran
Samuel D
SD
Gill
Janice
J
Calleja
John
J
Hickman
Peter E
PE
Beilby
John
J
Penberthy
Lloyd
L
Sikaris
Ken A
KA
D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D001315:Australia; D002624:Chemistry, Clinical / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D004502:Education, Medical, Continuing / Q000592:standards; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007256:Information Systems / Q000592:standards; D008297:Male; D008499:Medical Records / Q000592:standards; D008875:Middle Aged; D010139:Pacific Islands; D010338:Pathology, Clinical / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care / Q000379:methods / Q000592:standards*; D012955:Societies, Medical