You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 264 No. 3, July 18, 1990 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Toward Optimal Laboratory Use
 This Article
 •References
 •Full text PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (11)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Physician Performance of Laboratory Tests in Self-service Facilities

Residents' Perceptions and Performance

Lee H. Hilborne, MD; Neil S. Wenger, MD; Robert K. Oye, MD

JAMA. 1990;264(3):382-386.


Abstract

Primary care physicians perform simple laboratory tests in clinical practice, frequently with little formal training. To determine the frequency of tests that are performed and evaluate house officer laboratory skills, we surveyed house officer attitudes and tested their ability to perform four common laboratory tests. We received 193 responses from 254 house officers at one university teaching hospital. While most perceived the need to use ward laboratories (ie, self-service laboratories located on patient care wards), 67% used them infrequently. Barriers included poor laboratory condition, inadequate time, accuracy, and infectious exposure concerns. Twenty-four percent felt they did not know or were unsure if they knew how to perform simple tests. Forty-seven house officers completed the practical examination. Most accurately reported a spun hematocrit and correctly identified white blood cell findings on a blood smear. Only 50% counted 100 cells. Urinary dipstick interpretation was generally acceptable but the microscopic examination was less accurate. Twenty-three percent failed to identify gram-negative rods on a slide with both gram-positive cocci and gram-negative rods. If physicians are to perform selected laboratory tests, these data suggest, at least in one institution, more formal training, practice, and evaluation are necessary to ensure their performance with adequate proficiency.

(JAMA. 1990;264:382-386)



Author Affiliations

From the Departments of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (Dr Hilborne) and Medicine (Drs Wenger and Oye), University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine.


Footnotes

The opinions and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.

Reprint requests to Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles School of Medicine, 10833 Le Conte Ave, Los Angeles, CA 90024-1732 (Dr Hilborne).



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Interobserver Reliability of Urine Sediment Interpretation
Wald et al.
CJASN 2009;4:567-571.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Teaching the microscopic examination of urine sediment to second year medical students using the Urinalysis-Tutor computer program
Phillips et al.
Clin. Chem. 1998;44:1692-1700.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 1990 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.