Sinard, John H.

Context.— After-death care can be complicated and time-consuming for clinical staff, and frustrating for bereaved families. Delays and errors can have damaging legal and reputational consequences for hospitals. Offices of Decedent Affairs (ODAs) have been proposed as a solution, and their potential benefits have been described in several single institution reports. The literature lacks a contemporary and comprehensive review of existing ODAs and their approaches. Objective.— To describe the process of establishing a new ODA and to provide a snapshot of the spectrum of structure, function, and impact of existing ODAs in the United States. Design.— A survey was administered to 11 established ODAs spread across the continental United States. Programs were identified through the College of American Pathologists Autopsy Committee and a Medical Autopsy Listserv. Results.— Eleven ODAs returned the survey, representing more than 190 cumulative years of experience in decedent care in the hospital setting (median, 10 years). There was a wide range in staffing (both staff size and background) as well as scope of services offered. The median ratio of hospital deaths to full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing was 360 deaths per FTE. Respondents reported that ODAs unburden clinical providers and facilitate decedent management. Some respondents reported a quicker turnover of hospital beds and shorter intervals between pronouncement of death and autopsy. ODAs increased autopsy rates when the autopsy services were part of the ODA. Conclusions.— This survey provides practical information for hospitals considering establishing a new ODA and useful benchmarks for existing ODA programs.

Context.— Decedent Affairs Offices and Programs can serve as an avenue to assist medical centers in facilitating efficient and comprehensive decedent management, despite a paucity of literature on their roles, establishment, and efficacy. Objective.— To characterize the motivations and rationales for establishing Decedent Affairs Offices. Design.— A survey was administered to 11 established Decedent Affairs Offices/Programs, identified through the College of American Pathologists Autopsy Committee and a Medical Autopsy Listserv. The questions comprehensively cover establishment, operations, and outcomes data available by institution. Results.— Survey respondents reported the rationale for starting their programs and the benefits such offices can have. Conclusions.— Decedent Affairs Offices and Programs provide a useful option to medical centers to navigate the increasingly complex task of comprehensive decedent management. The present survey helps to delineate the similarities and differences between these programs at 11 institutions, to aid nascent programs in their establishment and growth over time.

Context.— Biomedical terminologies such as Logical Observation Identifiers, Names, and Codes (LOINC) were developed to enable interoperability of health care data between disparate health information systems to improve patient outcomes, public health, and research activities. Objective.— To ascertain the utilization rate and accuracy of LOINC terminology mapping to 10 commonly ordered tests by participants of the College of American Pathologists (CAP) Proficiency Testing program. Design.— Questionnaires were sent to 1916 US and Canadian laboratories participating in the 2018 CAP coagulation (CGL) and/or cardiac markers (CRT) surveys requesting information on practice setting, instrument(s) and test method(s), and LOINC code selection and usage in the laboratory and electronic health records. Results.— Ninety of 1916 CGL and/or CRT participants (4.7%) responded to the questionnaire. Of the 275 LOINC codes reported, 54 (19.6%) were incorrect: 2 codes (5934-2 and 12345-1) (0.7%) did not exist in the LOINC database and the highest error rates were observed in the property (27 of 275, 9.8%), system (27 of 275, 9.8%), and component (22 of 275, 8.0%) LOINC axes. Errors in LOINC code selection included selection of the incorrect component (eg, activated clotting time instead of activated partial thromboplastin time); selection of panels that can never be used to obtain an individual analyte (eg, prothrombin time panel instead of international normalized ratio); and selection of an incorrect specimen type. Conclusions.— These findings of real-world LOINC code implementation across a spectrum of laboratory settings should raise concern about the reliability and utility of using LOINC for clinical research or to aggregate data.