Learner decision: verify, chart, and act on SP-2

SP-2 flagged as both a critical potassium value and a missed 30-minute TAT target. Before that flag drives any action, the technologist auditing the workbook has to decide two things at once: is this flag a true reflection of the raw data, or could it be a spreadsheet error, and given the honest options, which chart actually belongs in the morning huddle summary.

The first check is a formula audit, not a re-test of the specimen: trace SP-2's flag back through the analysis sheet to the raw-data sheet and confirm the received and reported timestamps and the result value match the original LIS export untouched. A critical flag that turns out to be a copy-paste error in the analysis sheet is not a patient event; it is a workbook defect, and treating it as a patient event wastes a notification call and may mask where the real problem is.

Once the raw values are confirmed, SP-2 is a genuine critical result with a genuine delay, and 42 CFR 493.1291 requires immediate notification of the ordering party regardless of the delay. If a result is later found to have been reported in error, 42 CFR 493.1291 separately requires prompt notification, a corrected report, and retention of both the original and corrected reports; a workbook that cannot show what changed and when cannot support that obligation.

The second decision is which chart belongs in the huddle deck. With seven rows and one morning of data, a boxplot or dot plot of TAT by test, shown next to the flag table, is the honest choice; a run chart needs more time points than this dataset has, a Pareto chart needs rejected specimens that this dataset does not contain, and a 3-D column chart or a bar chart with a non-zero-based axis would exaggerate a small TAT difference in a way CDC axis-honesty guidance warns against.

Confirm a flag against its raw source before acting on it, and pick the chart that fits the size and shape of the data in front of you, not the chart that looks most impressive.