Skip to main content

Table 4 Comparison of the time consumption (hours) of the two methods for verifying HBV reports for 3000 cases

From: Development and implementation of an LIS-based validation system for autoverification toward zero defects in the automated reporting of laboratory test results

Steps Manual validation (h) New method (h)
1. Set 65 rules 1.5 1.5
2. Perform Rule 130 test 2.5 2.5
3. Correctness verification 0 0.25a
4. Personnel comparison report and results review 240 240
5. Record comparison result 100 0b
6. Analysis of the verification number 10 0b
7. Determine whether to activate automatic approval 5 0b
8. Personnel analysis of the reasons for inconsistent audit results 90 30
9. Add and modify rules 1 1
10. Determine whether to turn off autoverification 1 0c
Total 452 275
  1. In the measurement of the validation time, we divided the complete autoverification into 10 stages. The statistics of manual verification and the new method for each step are shown in Table 4. In steps 4–6, in total, 3000 reports are used for statistics. The time consumption of the consistent work content in the new and old methods is subject to the following: the manual timing of the old method, such as steps 1, 2, 4, and 9; the inconsistent steps in the two methods; the new steps that are recorded in the system, such as step 3; the saving step time clearing, such as steps 5, 6, 7, and 10; and the remaining steps that are estimated, such as step 8
  2. For automatic implementation, the time is calculated as zero
  3. aReasons for invalid locking rules
  4. bReduced workload
  5. cControlled risks