Office Laboratory

  • K. Owen Ash
  • John M. Matsen
  • Gerald Rothstein

Abstract

The decision to set up and maintain an office laboratory is complex. The interest and expertise of the individual physician, availability of suitable laboratory services, appropriate paramedical help, economic considerations, and the specific needs of the patient population are among the parameters which influence the decision. Unless the physician has the time and interest to become actively and regularly involved, the office laboratory should not be considered.

Keywords

Normal Urine Cotton Ball Reagent Strip Office Laboratory Sheep Blood Agar Plate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Cook MH, Free HM, Free AH: The detection of blood in urine. Am J Med Technol 22:218, 1956PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cowen JB: Results of a survey of physicians’ offices in northwest Illinois. Ill Med J 149:377, 1976Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Date JW: Quantitative determination of some carbohydrates in normal urine. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 10:155, 1958PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Davidsohn I, Henry JB (eds): Clinical Diagnosis by Laboratory Methods, 15th ed. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1974Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davis AE: Evaluation of an improved reagent strip system for measuring blood glucose. Am J Med Technol 42(1):18, 1976Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry. Tietz NW (ed) Philadelphia, Saunders, 1976Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Grant GH, Kachmar JF: The proteins of body fluids. In Tietz NW (ed) : Fundamentals of Clinical Chemistry. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1976Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Halsted JA: The Laboratory in Clinical Medicine. Philadelphia, Saunders, 1976Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Henry RJ, Cannon DC, Winkelman JW (eds): Clinical Chemistry Principles and Technics. Hagerstown, Md, Harper & Row, 1974Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Levinsky NG: The interpretation of proteinuria and the urinary sediment. In Disease-a-Month. Chicago, Yearbook Medical, 1967Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lippman RW: Urine and the Urinary Sediment, 2nd ed. Springfield, Ill, Thomas, 1957Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Manuel Y, Revillard JP, Betuel H (eds): Proteins in Normal and Pathological Urine. Basel, Karger, 1970Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin WJ, Wagoner RD: Minn Med 48:231, 1965PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Miller SE: Examination of urine. In Miller SE (ed): A Textbook of Clinical Pathology, 7th ed. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1966Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    National Survey of Physicians’ Office Laboratories. HSM 110–72–341, Bureau of Quality Assurance. Rockville, Md, United States Public Health Service, 1975Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Relman AS, Levinsky NG: Clinical examination of renal function. In Strauss MB, Welt LG (eds): Diseases of the Kidney. Boston, Little, Brown, 1971Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stewart TC: Evaluation of a reagent-strip method for glucose in whole blood, as compared with a hexokinase method. Clin Chem 22:74, 1976PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Strauss MB, Welt LG (eds): Diseases of the Kidney, Vols 1 and 2. Boston, Little, Brown, 1971Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Urine Under the Microscope. ROCOM Press, Division of Hoffmann-LaRoche, 1973Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ward Laboratory Syllabus. Department of Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, 1973Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wright WT: Cell counts in urine. Arch Intern Med 103:76, 1959CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1978

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Owen Ash
  • John M. Matsen
  • Gerald Rothstein

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations