The performance of delta check methods.

Clinical Chemistry (Impact Factor: 7.77). 01/1980; 25(12):2034-7.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The percentage of mislabeled specimens detected (true-positive rate) and the percentage of correctly labeled specimens misidentified (false-positive rate) were computed for three previously proposed delta check methods and two linear discriminant functions. The true-positive rate was computed from a set of pairs of specimens, each having one member replaced by a member from another pair chosen at random. The relationship between true-positive and false-positive rates was similar among the delta check methods tested, indicating equal performance for all of them over the range of false-positive rate of interest. At a practical false-positive operating rate of about 5%, delta check methods detect only about 50% of mislabeled specimens; even if the actual mislabeling rate is moderate (e.g., 1%), only abot 10% of specimens flagged a by a delta check will actually have been mislabeled.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many laboratories use 4 delta check methods: delta difference, delta percent change, rate difference, and rate percent change. However, guidelines regarding decision criteria for selecting delta check methods have not yet been provided. We present new decision criteria for selecting delta check methods for each clinical chemistry test item. We collected 811,920 and 669,750 paired (present and previous) test results for 27 clinical chemistry test items from inpatients and outpatients, respectively. We devised new decision criteria for the selection of delta check methods based on the ratio of the delta difference to the width of the reference range (DD/RR). Delta check methods based on these criteria were compared with those based on the CV% of the absolute delta difference (ADD) as well as those reported in 2 previous studies. The delta check methods suggested by new decision criteria based on the DD/RR ratio corresponded well with those based on the CV% of the ADD except for only 2 items each in inpatients and outpatients. Delta check methods based on the DD/RR ratio also corresponded with those suggested in the 2 previous studies, except for 1 and 7 items in inpatients and outpatients, respectively. The DD/RR method appears to yield more feasible and intuitive selection criteria and can easily explain changes in the results by reflecting both the biological variation of the test item and the clinical characteristics of patients in each laboratory. We suggest this as a measure to determine delta check methods.
    Annals of Laboratory Medicine 09/2012; 32(5):345-54. DOI:10.3343/alm.2012.32.5.345 · 1.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Maintaining patient identity throughout the biopsy pathway is critical for the practice of dermatology and dermatopathology. From the biopsy procedure to the acquisition of the pathology report, a specimen may pass through the hands of more than twenty individuals in several workplaces. The risk of a mix-up is considerable and may account for more serious mistakes than diagnostic errors. To prevent specimen mix-up, work processes should be standardized and automated wherever possible, e.g., by strict order in the operating room and in the laboratory and by adoption of a bar code system to identify specimens and corresponding request forms. Mutual control of clinicians, technicians, histopathologists, and secretaries, both simultaneously and downstream, is essential to detect errors. The most vulnerable steps of the biopsy pathway, namely, labeling of specimens and request forms and accessioning of biopsy specimens in the laboratory, should be carried out by two persons simultaneously. In preceding work steps, clues must be provided that allow a mix-up to be detected later on, such as information about clinical diagnosis, biopsy technique, and biopsy site by the clinician, and a sketch of the specimen by the technician grossing it. Awareness of the danger of specimen mix-up is essential for preventing and detecting it. The awareness can be heightened by documentation of any error in the biopsy pathway. In case of suspicion, a mix-up of specimens from different patients can be confirmed by DNA analysis.
    01/2014; 4(1):27-42. DOI:10.5826/dpc.0401a04
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Autoverification is a process of using computer-based rules to verify clinical laboratory test results without manual intervention. To date, there is little published data on the use of autoverification over the course of years in a clinical laboratory. We describe the evolution and application of autoverification in an academic medical center clinical chemistry core laboratory.
    03/2014; 5(1):13. DOI:10.4103/2153-3539.129450


Available from