Abstract
CONTEXT: Routine repeat testing of critical values is a long-standing practice in many clinical laboratories; however, its usefulness and necessity remain to be empirically established and no regulatory requirements yet exist for verification of the critical value results obtained by repeat analysis. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether repeat testing of critical values is useful and necessary in a clinical chemistry laboratory. METHODS: A total of 601 chemistry critical values (potassium, n = 255; sodium, n = 132; calcium, n = 108; glucose, n = 106) obtained from 72,259 routine clinical chemistry specimens were repeat tested. The absolute value and the percentage of difference between the two testing runs were calculated for each of the four critical values and then compared with the allowable error limit put forth in the College of American Pathologists (CAP). RESULTS: Among the repeat data for the 601 critical values, a total of 24 showed large differences between the initial result and the repeated result which exceeded the CAP limits for allowable error. The number and rates (%) of large differences for within and outside the analytical measurement range (AMR) were 12 (2.1%) and 12 (41.4%), respectively. For the 572 critical values within the AMR for each test category, the mean absolute difference (mmol/L) and difference(%) between the two testing runs were: potassium, 0.1 mmol/L (2.7%); sodium, 2.1 mmol/L (1.7%); calcium, 0.05 mmol/L (3.0%); glucose, 0.18 mmol/L (2.6%). CONCLUSIONS: When the initial chemistry critical values are within the AMR, repeated testing does not improve accuracy and is therefore unnecessary. When the initial chemistry critical values are outside the AMR, however, the benefit of repeated testing justifies its performance and makes it necessary. Performing repeat clinical testing on a case-by-case, rather than routine, basis can improve patient care by delivering critical values more rapidly while providing savings on reagent costs associated with unnecessary repeat testing.