ICELogo_1000x188 (2).jpg

    ICE Partner Banner.JPG

    Abstract Scoring

    1. Each submission will be considered by at least two peer reviewers.
    2. The abstract does not need to represent new or innovative strategies; getting good results with a known strategy is valuable for the situational nuances demonstrated as well as the robustness of the strategy.  Of course, brand new strategies, i.e. innovations, are also welcome.
    3. Failed projects are just as useful as successes if proper analysis occurs; results of poorly planned studies are less useful than good studies with disappointing outcomes. The key is whether others will learn something from the study that will help them improve patient outcomes.
    4. Although not required, interventions that increased laboratory spending while they also demonstrate improved patient outcomes and lowered overall institutional spending are of special interest.
    5. During the review process, some additional questions might be directed to the submitters concerning methodology and data analysis.
    6. See below for ICE Scoring Criteria.

    Scoring (Maximum: 50 points)

    1.Statement of Problem & Background (7)

    1. Does the problem statement explicitly identify the goal, i.e. benefit to be improved or the harm to be reduced? (0-no,1-partially, 2-yes)
    2. Is there sufficient context/background about the problem, including the stakeholders involved? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-mostly, 3-yes)
    3. Does the background describe the importance of solving the problem, i.e. the priority? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-yes)

    2.Intervention/Study Plan/Measures (20)

    1. Is the description of the intervention to be used, and the reason for its selection, clear and complete? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-mostly,3-yes)
    2. Is the method/protocol/study plan well described (0-no, 1-partially, 2-mostly, 3-yes)
    3. Is the setting clearly and appropriately defined, e.g. emergency room, primary care office, etc? (0-no, 1-yes)
    4. Is the patient population clearly and completely described, e.g. gender, age, minority status, insurance status, etc. versus general population? (0-no, 1-yes)
    5. Are the utilized measures appropriate? (10 from the following 3 items)
    1. Are the utilized measures well-defined? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-yes)
    2. Are the measures appropriate for the problem and the intervention? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-yes)
    3. Are the measures linked to patient outcomes? Using the following four descriptions as guidelines, choose a single score that best reflects the strength of the linkage.
    1. Direct measure of patient outcome e.g. time to diagnosis, reduced transfusions or antibiotics; fewer adverse events (range of 5-6 points)
    2. Strong linkage to direct patient outcome, e.g. time out of therapeutic range, patient satisfaction; reduced readmissions (3-4)
    3. Moderate linkage to direct patient outcome, e.g. reduced rate of recollects (1-2)
    4. Weak linkage to direct patient outcome, e.g. reduced hemolysis or short fill rate no data on patient impact such that patientbenefit can only be inferred (0)**
    1. Is the data collection process adequate for the problem? (0-2)

    3.Data Analysis and Results (16)

    1. Is the source of the data specified? (0-no, 1-yes)
    2. Is the time span in which data is collected both described and sufficient? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-yes)
    3. Is the total volume of data meaningful? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-yes)
    4. Is there a good comparator (baseline or control) from which to assess improvement? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-yes)
    5. Is the statistical treatment of the collected data appropriate? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-mostly, 3-yes)
    6. Is there evidence that other causes were considered that would explain the data? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-yes)
    7. Were appropriate additional measures included that would detect unfavorable results from the intervention? (0-no, 1-yes, but weak measure, 2-yes, but only moderate approach, 4-yes and well-done)

    4.Discussion/Lessons learned (7)

    1. Was there adequate consideration of other factors (limitations) that could influence the data (0-no, 1-partially, 2-mostly, 3-yes)
    2. Were the conclusions described and their applicability to other similar institutions? (0-no, 1-partially, 2-mostly, 3-yes)
    3. Was there discussion of what will/has changed in the institution as a result of the work (0-no, 1-yes)

      *Scoring methods are subject to change without further notice

      **If the linkage to patient outcomes is weak, the abstract will not be accepted as an ICE abstract, but the abstract will be referred to other categories that do not have this limitation.

    © 2015 Clinical Laboratory Management Association. All Rights Reserved.


    CLMA empowers laboratory professionals to achieve excellence in leadership through forward-thinking educational, networking, and advocacy opportunities.

    330 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2000 Chicago, IL 60611
    Phone 312.321.5111 | Email info@clma.org