INTRODUCTION : To determine whether the current set of evaluation criteria used for dilute Russel Viper Venom Time (dRVVT) investigations in the routine laboratory meet expectation and identify possible shortcomings.
METHODS : All dRVVT assays requested from January 2015 to December 2015 were appraised in this cross‐sectional study. The raw data panels were compared with the new reference interval, established in 2016, to determine the sequence of assays that should have been performed. The interpretive comments were audited, and false‐negative reports identified. Interpretive comments according to three interpretation guidelines were compared. The reagent cost per assay was determined, and reagent cost wastage, due to redundant tests, was calculated.
RESULTS : Only ~9% of dRVVT results authorized during 2015 had an interpretive comment included in the report. ~15% of these results were false‐negative interpretations. There is a significant statistical difference in interpretive comments between the three interpretation methods. Redundant mixing tests resulted in R 7477.91 (~11%) reagent cost wastage in 2015.
CONCLUSIONS : We managed to demonstrate very evident deficiencies in our own practice and managed to establish a standardized workflow that will potentially render our service more efficient and cost effective, aiding clinicians in making improved treatment decisions and diagnoses. Furthermore, it is essential that standard operating procedures be kept up to date and executed by all staff in the laboratory.