Experience with assessing the quality of comments on clinical biochemistry reports

We assess a previously described scoring system for the appropriateness of interpretative comments on clinical biochemistry reports over 21 distributed cases and over a group of 41 UK-based participants. The distributed cases covered a range of clinical scenarios and included pre- and post-analytical problems. The UK-based participants had all registered an interest in using this case participation for their continuing professional development: all had higher professional qualifications in clinical biochemistry, and the group included participants based in teaching hospitals and district general hospitals as well as those with a medical or a scientific background. Although the present scoring system favours participants who mention more than one possible outcome and who include several ideas for further investigation, its advantages seem to outweigh its disadvantages. The scored cases are currently unique, and are seen to be of major educational value not only by active participants but also by those who are using them for teaching or in discussion groups.