Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 30, 2026

High-throughput Quantitative Real-time RT-PCR Assay for Determining Expression Profiles of Types I and III Interferon Subtypes
Published on: March 24, 2015
Assessing Clinical Laboratory Quality: A College of American Pathologists Q-Probes Study of Prothrombin Time INR
Peter J Howanitz, Theresa P Darcy, Frederick A Meier
1From the Department of Pathology, State University of New York, Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn (Dr Howanitz); the Department of Pathology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, (Dr Darcy); the Department of Pathology, Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, Michigan (Dr Meier), and the Surveys Department, College of American Pathologists, Northfield, Illinois (Ms. Bashleben).
Context:
The anticoagulant warfarin has been identified as the second most frequent drug responsible for serious, disabling, and fatal adverse drug events in the United States, and its effect on blood coagulation is monitored by the laboratory test called international normalized ratio (INR).
Objective:
To determine the presence of INR policies and procedures, INR practices, and completeness and timeliness of reporting critical INR results in participants' clinical laboratories.
Design:
Participants reviewed their INR policies and procedure requirements, identified their practices by using a questionnaire, and studied completeness of documentation and timeliness of reporting critical value INR results for outpatients and emergency department patients.
Results:
In 98 participating institutions, the 5 required policies and procedures were in place in 93% to 99% of clinical laboratories. Fifteen options for the allowable variations among duplicate results from different analyzers, 12 different timeliness goals for reporting critical values, and 18 unique critical value limits were used by participants. All required documentation elements were present in 94.8% of 192 reviewed INR validation reports. Critical value INR results were reported within the time frame established by the laboratory for 93.4% of 2604 results, but 1.0% of results were not reported. Although the median laboratories successfully communicated all critical results within their established time frames and had all the required validation elements based in their 2 most recent INR calculations, those participants at the lowest 10th percentile were successful in 80.0% and 85.7% of these requirements, respectively.
Conclusions:
Significant opportunities exist for adherence to INR procedural requirements and for practice patterns and timeliness goals for INR critical results' reporting.
More Related Videos
08:50Thrombus Profiling Assay: A Microfluidics-Based Platform for Comprehensively Characterizing Biomechanical Thrombogenesis
Published on: January 9, 2026
08:01The Nijmegen Hemostasis Assay: Simultaneous Fluorogenic Measurement of Thrombin and Plasmin Generation in a Single Well
Published on: February 27, 2026