Submited on: 18 Mar 2015 07:52:16 AM GMT
Published on: 18 Mar 2015 10:04:50 AM GMT
 

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    This article’s primary assertion is that better, more frequent training of health care professionals in pre-analytical laboratory practices will reduce errors in laboratory results. Reducing errors in laboratory testing is entirely relevant to improving the quality of patient care.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    These claims are not novel, similar claims have been made and similar studies have been conducted:

     

    Kaushik, N., & Green, S. (2014). Pre-analytical errors: Their impact and how to minimize them. MLO: Medical Laboratory Observer, 46(5), 22, 24, 26.                                                                                    

     

    Lillo, R., Salinas, M., Lopez-Garrigós, M., Naranjo-Santana, Y., Gutiérrez, M., Dolores Marín, M., . . . Uris, J. (2012). Reducing Preanalytical Laboratory Sample Errors Through Educational and Technological Interventions. Clinical laboratory, 58. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/233722144_Reducing_Preanalytical_Laboratory_Sample_Errors_Through_Educational_and_Technological_Interventions


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    The only information cited is in the Introduction. The material throughout the rest of the paper does not draw on any outside ideas.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    The evidence given does appear to support the claims. Pre-analytical errors did appear to decrease after education.

    However, it is difficult to show causation given that no other variables were discussed. There is room for confounding variables in this study.  


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    No such protocol is provided. 


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    Not enough information was given to determine if methodology was valid or not. The authors claim the questionnaire administered was designed to test knowledge of various techniques, scientific ideas and proper protocols. However, without seeing the questionnaire, the reader must take the authors’ word for it. How, exactly when, and under what conditions the questionnaire was administered are all unknown. The audience is told multiple times that sample rejection incidence, sample rework incidence and sample outlying turnaround time were all measures of quality; however, it is not known what these indicators actually encompass nor is it given the extraneous factors which may influence these measures. It is not possible to repeat this study with the information provided. 


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    A fuller explanation of the methods is a good place to start. Also, if the data as well as the statistical analysis were laid out in table format it would greatly improve the audience’s ability to interpret. In addition, conducting the study with a control that receives no additional training would help determine what effect special attention to a professional’s work or knowledge would have on their performance. Conducting the study with a control would be about the same difficulty as the initial study and would add a much needed measure in determining validity. 


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No, until more information is given concerning the study methodology, one ought not use the results given here in a professional setting. Also, there were articles in existence previous to this one that do a better job justifying an identical claim. Furthermore, multiple studies have been conducted proving that, in general, increased education/training will decrease an individual’s tendency to make mistakes in a given endeavor. If the authors discovered anything anomalous in this study, then they did not mentioned in the accompanying report. 


  • Other Comments:

    This paper contains a multitude of grammatical errors. At many points throughout the paper, it is difficult to discern what the authors mean to communicate to the reader. As such, an overhaul of the writing itself is recommended to improve readability. Also, there are many redundancies in the report. The body of the report could most likely be reduced to two pages or less.  

     

    This paper furthers the idea that keeping medical professionals up to date on training and education improves patient care (a worthwhile endeavor). However, a sizable revision is needed.

  • Competing interests:
    .
  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    No
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:

    .

  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    .

  • How to cite:  Wesley P .A Review of Laboratory orientation programme - A need based training for quality reports and enhancing hospital administration[Review of the article 'Laboratory orientation programme - A need based training for quality reports and enhancing hospital administration ' by Ramakrishnan S].WebmedCentral 2015;7(11):WMCRW003317
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse
 
Laboratory Orientation Programme
Posted by Dr. Naveen K Pera on 15 Apr 2015 11:36:02 AM GMT Reviewed by WMC Editors

  • What are the main claims of the paper and how important are they?

    Well-trained Employees will reduce the errors in laboratory sample collection.

    In a country like India where education provides only degree not experience, it would be a valid finding. Authors need to explain what was the training program used in the study. Who is this specialist in Laboratory Medicine used in the training program.


  • Are these claims novel? If not, please specify papers that weaken the claims to the originality of this one.

    NA


  • Are the claims properly placed in the context of the previous literature?

    No review of literature or references have been added in Discussion section, which is not right. Many earlier studies would have been done in this area.


  • Do the results support the claims? If not, what other evidence is required?

    There is a difference of 1000 samples collected in both months of March & May. If both months had been same sample size then errors might have been equal.

    The training program details not given - Mode, Frequency, Trainer's competency, Number of people attended.

    The educational qualifications of nurses, phlebotomists was not considered.

    The work experience of employees has not been considered.

    Questionnaire has not been discussed.


  • If a protocol is provided, for example for a randomized controlled trial, are there any important deviations from it? If so, have the authors explained adequately why the deviations occurred?

    NA


  • Is the methodology valid? Does the paper offer enough details of its methodology that its experiments or its analyses could be reproduced?

    How can we claim a training session (lecture mode) will enhance the skills of phlebotomists, nurses.

    The skills will get acquired over some period of time, in one session and within 2 months duration, how can the errors reduce drastically.

    Each error (sample collection, labelling etc.) amounted to how many in number.


  • Would any other experiments or additional information improve the paper? How much better would the paper be if this extra work was done, and how difficult would such work be to do, or to provide?

    All the above mentioned points if elaborated will improve the credentials of paper. A statistical analytic tool like Tree diagram or Ishikawa chart will improve the results.


  • Is this paper outstanding in its discipline? (For example, would you like to see this work presented in a seminar at your hospital or university? Do you feel these results need to be incorporated in your next general lecture on the subject?) If yes, what makes it outstanding? If not, why not?

    No. The role of training to reduce errors has to be substantiated better with review of literature. More discussion required on type of training, profile of people.


  • Other Comments:

    None

  • Invited by the author to review this article? :
    Yes
  • Have you previously published on this or a similar topic?:
    No
  • References:
    None
  • Experience and credentials in the specific area of science:

    Teaching Quality Management in Healthcare since 8 years.

  • How to cite:  Pera N K.Laboratory Orientation Programme[Review of the article 'Laboratory orientation programme - A need based training for quality reports and enhancing hospital administration ' by Ramakrishnan S].WebmedCentral 2015;6(4):WMCRW003206
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Report abuse