rss
J Clin Pathol 2006;59:156-159 doi:10.1136/jcp.2005.025841
  • Original article

An audit of thrombophilia screens: results from the National Pathology Alliance benchmarking review

  1. S Lyons1,
  2. M J Galloway2,
  3. J Osgerby2,
  4. J Hanley3
  1. 1Department of Clinical and Laboratory Haematology, Sunderland Royal Hospital, Kayll Road, Sunderland SR4 7TP, UK
  2. 2Clinical Management Unit, Centre for Health Planning and Management, Suite 2.0, Darwin Building, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire ST5 5SP, UK
  3. 3Department of Haematology, Royal Victoria Infirmary, Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LP, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr M J Galloway
 City Hospitals Sunderland NHS Foundation Trust, Sunderland Royal Hospital, E Floor Haematology Office, Kayll Road, Sunderland SR4 7TP, UK; mike.galloway{at}chs.northy.nhs.uk
  • Accepted 24 May 2005

Abstract

Aims: The National Pathology Alliance benchmarking review has completed six years of data collection and analysis of the workload and organisation of haematology laboratories in the UK. This study audits national practice of routine thrombophilia screening against the current standards, as set out in the British committee for standards in haematology (BCSH) guidelines on investigation of heritable thrombophilia.

Methods: Each laboratory completed a standard data collection questionnaire about the number of routine thrombophilia assays performed each year. Information was collected on which thrombophilia tests were performed as part of a routine thrombophilia screen. These results were then compared against the BCSH guidelines on investigation of heritable thrombophilia.

Results: Of the 57 National Health Service trusts that submitted data for review in 2002/2003, 47 performed a routine thrombophilia screen. Ten laboratories complied with the guidelines but 37 laboratories did not.

Conclusion: There was variation in practice in the tests used in routine thrombophilia screens. There is evidence that some laboratories deviate from what may be regarded as “evidence based practice”. The lack of compliance with the guidelines was in general associated with the performance of additional tests not recommended in the guideline. In a minority of laboratories, a clinically significant diagnosis would be missed by the failure to include one or more tests in a thrombophilia screen.

Footnotes

    Responses to this article

    This Article

    Services

    1. Request permissions

    Social bookmarking

    Latest from JCP Education

    Latest from JCP Education

    Register for free content


    Free sample
    This recent issue is free to all users to allow everyone the opportunity to see the full scope and typical content of JCP.
    View free sample issue >>

    Free archive
    The full back archive is now available for JCP. Institutional subscribers may access the entire archive as part of their subscription. Personal subscribers will also have access to all content when logged in. Non-subscribers who register have free access to all articles published before 2006, back to volume 1 issue 1.
    Register to access the free archive >>

    Don't forget to sign up for content alerts so you keep up to date with all the articles as they are published.

  • Latest Pathology jobs

    Latest Pathology jobs