Caller alleged discrepant low inratio inr result in comparison to the laboratory inr result.On (b)(6) 2014, the patient's inratio inr result, in the primary care physician's office, was 2.0.Reportedly, the meter was not in the correct mode when finger stick was performed.The sample was not applied immediately after the finger stick and first drop of blood was not used.Additionally, improper capillary tube was used.The patient's target range is 2.0-3.0.Within one hour (12:14), the patient's laboratory inr result was 8.0.The (b)(6) , female patient presented with suprapubic and low back pain to the emergency room the same day.The pain was described as progressive in nature, stabbing in quality resulting in progression of nausea and vomiting.The patient is with a one day history of hematuria.Original computerized tomography (ct) scan, ordered by physician prior to onset of pain, showed no acute abnormality.The follow-up abdomen and pelvis ct scan in the emergency room revealed a very mild left hydronephrosis and some perirenal fluid consistent with possible fornical rupture.There was filling defects in the renal pelvis and ureter consistent with clots.The patient was admitted to the hospital and given pain medication, antiemetic, intravenous (iv) hydration and urology consultation ordered.The second laboratory inr (22:05) was 8.4.On (b)(6) 2014 (04:23), the laboratory inr was 6.9.Urology consultation was performed and correction of coagulopathy with 2 unites of fresh frozen plasma (ffp) given.Per urologist, the urethral clots would absorb spontaneously over time.Urologist offered to place ureteral stent; however, patient deferred.At 18:38 the inr was 3.3 and on (b)(6) 2014 (04:27) inr was 3.4.No discharge was provided.There was no additional information provided.
|