rss
J Clin Pathol 2007;60:740-748 doi:10.1136/jcp.2006.044719
  • Review

Best practice in primary care pathology: review 8

  1. W S A Smellie1,
  2. K K Hampton2,
  3. R Bowlees3,
  4. S C Martin4,
  5. N Shaw3,
  6. J Hoffman5,
  7. J P Ng6,
  8. S M Mackenzie7,
  9. C van Heyningen8
  1. 1Department of Chemical Pathology, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Bishop Auckland, UK
  2. 2Department of Haematology, Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, UK
  3. 3Sowerby Centre for Health Informatics, All Saints Business Centre, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
  4. 4Department of Clinical Biochemistry, West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St Edmonds, UK
  5. 5Department of Histopathology, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Bishop Auckland, UK
  6. 6Department of Haematology, Barnsley Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Barnsley, UK
  7. 7Department of Clinical Biochemistry, Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
  8. 8Department of Clinical Biochemistry, University Hospital Aintree, Liverpool, UK
  1. Correspondence to:
 Dr W S A Smellie
 Department of Chemical Pathology, Bishop Auckland General Hospital, Cockton Hill Road, Bishop Auckland, County Durham DL14 6AD, UK; info{at}smellie.com
  • Accepted 6 December 2006
  • Published Online First 15 December 2006

Abstract

This eighth best practice review examines four series of common primary care questions in laboratory medicine: (i) sodium abnormalities; (ii) faecal occult blood testing; (iii) warfarin management; and (iv) sputum cytology in diagnosis of bronchopulmonary malignancy. The review is presented in question–answer format, referenced for each question series. The recommendations represent a précis of guidance found using a standardised literature search of national and international guidance notes, consensus statements, health policy documents and evidence-based medicine reviews, supplemented by Medline Embase searches to identify relevant primary research documents. They are not standards but form a guide to be set in the clinical context. Most are consensus rather than evidence-based. They will be updated periodically to take account of new information.

Footnotes

  • Published Online First 15 December 2006

  • Funding: This work has been supported (in alphabetical order) by the Association of Clinical Biochemists*, Association of Clinical Pathologists*, Association of Medical Microbiologists, British Society for Haematology, Royal College of General Practitioners, Royal College of Pathologists* and the Sowerby Centre for Health Informatics in Newcastle (SCHIN), representatives of whom have contributed to the reviewing process. The opinions stated are however those of the authors. *These organisations contributed direct funding to support the project start up.

  • Competing interests: None declared.

This Article

  1. Abstract
  2. Full text
  3. PDF
  4. All versions of this article:
    1. jcp.2006.044719v1
    2. 60/7/740 most recent

Responses

  1. Submit a response
  2. No responses published

Register for free content

The full back archive is now available for all BMJ Journals. 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 right back to volume 1 issue 1. Register here to access the free archive of all BMJ Journals.

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