Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 197
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once
98%
921
2 minutes
20
Technologists must assure the accuracy and precision of pulmonary function equipment prior to testing patients. This study aimed to identify the sources of failure and unacceptable submission rates for spirometry volume linearity and syringe diffusing capacity of the lung for carbon monoxide (D) check quality control (QC). In addition, we explored whether the time between training and first QC submission affected overall percentage of unacceptable submissions. Participants in a cross-sectional global study submitted QC for evaluation from October 2014 to May 2018 from 114 laboratories. Descriptive statistics summarized the percentage of unacceptable submissions and sources of failure for volume linearity and syringe D check maneuvers. Spearman's rho described the correlation between site-specific unacceptable submission rates, and both days between training and the first unacceptable submission and the days between training and first submission. The unacceptable submission rate from 5,083 volume linearity assessments was 10% compared with a 6.2% rate from 4,992 syringe D check maneuvers. Aggregate volume linearity rates of procedural errors (5.8%) and equipment errors (6.2%) were similar, whereas there were more syringe D check equipment errors (5.9%) than procedural errors (0.78%). The time between training and submitting a QC test was not related to overall unacceptable submission rates for volume linearity and syringe D check, = 0.11, = .27 and = 0.19, = .052, respectively. Higher unacceptable rates occurred when the first QC failure occurred close to the completion of training for volume linearity and syringe D check, = -0.41, < .001 and = -0.38, < .001, respectively. A single QC training session does not adequately prepare technologists to conduct QC. Technologists need clear and consistent guidelines for conducting QC procedures and regular follow-up from experts to properly interpret QC findings, resolve equipment problems, and assure their testing systems are in-control.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12411412 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/respcare.12565 | DOI Listing |